1: %% ApJ emulation including times fonts
2: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{apjfonts}
4:
5: % Referee style aastex
6: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: %%
9: %% SOME MACROS
10: %%
11: \topmargin .3in
12:
13: \newcommand*{\E}[1]{\ensuremath{\times 10^{#1}}}%
14: \newcommand*{\p}{\ensuremath{\pm}}%
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
19: %% TITLE
20: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
21:
22: \title{The Structure of Classical Bulges And Pseudobulges: The Link
23: Between Pseudobulges And S\'ersic Index}
24:
25: \shorttitle{Structure of Pseudobulges \& Classical Bulges}
26: \shortauthors{Fisher \& Drory}
27:
28: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
29: %% AUTHORS
30: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
31:
32: \author{David~B.~Fisher\footnote{For complete version with appendix and high resolution images, please visit http://spitzer.as.utexas.edu/~twitch/Papers/papers.html}}
33: \affil{Department of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin,\\
34: 1 University Station C1400, Austin, Texas 78712\\
35: {\tt dbfisher@astro.as.utexas.edu}}
36:
37: \and
38:
39: \author{Niv~Drory}
40: \affil{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur
41: Extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbachstra\ss e, 85748 Garching, Germany\\
42: {\tt drory@mpe.mpg.de}}
43:
44:
45: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
46: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
47:
48: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
49: %% ABSTRACT
50: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: In this paper we study the properties of pseudobulges (bulges that
54: appear similar to disk galaxies) and classical bulges (bulges which
55: appear similar to E-type galaxies) in bulge-disk decompositions. We
56: show that the distribution of bulge S\'ersic indices, $n_b$, is
57: bimodal, and this bimodality correlates with the morphology of the
58: bulge. Pseudobulges have $n_b \lesssim 2$ and classical bulges have
59: $n_b \gtrsim 2$ with little-to-no overlap. Also, pseudobulges do
60: not follow the correlations of S\'ersic index with structural
61: parameters or the photometric projections of the fundamental plane
62: in the same way as classical bulges and elliptical galaxies do. We
63: find that pseudobulges are systematically flatter than classical
64: bulges and thus more disk-like in both their morphology and
65: shape. We do not find significant differences between different
66: bulge morphologies that we are collectively calling pseudobulges
67: (nuclear spirals, nuclear rings, nuclear bars, and nuclear
68: patchiness) appear to behave similarly in all parameter
69: correlations. In S\'ersic index, flattening, and bulge-to-total
70: ratio, the distinction appears to be between classical bulges and
71: pseudobulges, not between different pseudobulge morphologies. The
72: S\'ersic index of the pseudobulges does not correlate with $B/T$, in
73: contrast to classical bulges. Also, the half-light radius of the
74: pseudobulge correlates with the scale length of the disk; this is
75: not the case for classical bulges. The correlation of S\'ersic
76: index and scale lengths with bulge morphology suggests that secular
77: evolution is creating pseudobulges with low-S\'ersic index, and that
78: other processes (e.g.~major mergers) are responsible for the higher
79: S\'ersic index in classical bulges and elliptical galaxies.
80: \end{abstract}
81:
82:
83: %% KEYWORDS
84: \keywords{galaxies: bulges --- galaxies: formation ---
85: galaxies: structure --- galaxies: fundamental parameters}
86:
87:
88:
89: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
90: %% INTRODUCTION
91: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
92:
93: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
94:
95: Historically, all bulges were assumed to be little elliptical galaxies
96: residing in the centers of galactic disks. Thus it was also assumed
97: that all bulges were dynamically hot stellar systems. Recent work puts
98: this assumption in question. Many bulges have disk-like features that
99: do not resemble E-type galaxies.
100:
101: {\em Classical bulges} are dynamically hot, and relatively
102: featureless; they appear similar to the end products of galaxy major
103: mergers. They are easily recognized as having morphologies very
104: similar to E-type galaxies.
105:
106: In contrast, many bulges have features that are not found in
107: elliptical galaxies, but in galactic disks. These features include the
108: following: kinematics dominated by rotation \citep{k93}; flattening
109: similar to that of their outer disk \citep{fathi2003,k93}; mid-IR
110: colors of the bulge are similar to those of the outer disk
111: \citep{fisher2006}; nuclear bar \citep{erwin2002}; nuclear ring and/or
112: nuclear spiral \citep{carollo97}; near-exponential surface brightness
113: profiles \citep{andredak94}. Bulges with such properties are called
114: {\em pseudobulges}. All of these phenomena are manifestations of
115: stellar systems that that are dynamically cold. However, the extent to
116: which these features exist simultaneously in all pseudobulges is not
117: yet well-understood. For a review of the properties of pseudobulges
118: see \cite{kk04} (KK04 hereafter).
119:
120: In this paper, we refer to the super-set of the two systems simply as
121: {\em bulges}. We note that in this paper the term {\em pseudobulge}
122: refers to bulges with morphology reminiscent of disk galaxies; there
123: is no {\em a priori} assumption about their formation mechanism.
124:
125: Investigating the link between bulge morphology and bulge structural
126: parameters is the main interest of this article. More precisely, those
127: bulges with morphologies that are reminiscent of disks (such as
128: nuclear rings, nuclear bars and nuclear spirals) are expected to have
129: lower S\'ersic index than those bulges with smooth light distributions
130: resembling E-type galaxies. We will investigate whether this
131: expectation holds and whether the distribution of bulge S\'ersic
132: indices is dichotomous.
133:
134: Determining whether a critical S\'ersic index that discriminates
135: between classical bulges and pseudobulges exists, and what its value
136: is, impacts our understanding of bulge formation in at least two
137: ways. First, the distribution of S\'ersic indices would constrain
138: formation theories of classical bulges and pseudobulges. Also, the
139: existence of a critical S\'ersic index would robustly establish a
140: method for distinguishing pseudobulges from classical bulges without
141: using high-resolution imaging or kinematic data, neither of which is
142: currently available in large surveys.
143:
144: In the last ten years, the subject of surface brightness profiles of
145: bulges and elliptical galaxies has experienced a shift of
146: paradigm. Traditionally, surface brightness profiles of elliptical
147: galaxies and bulges were all thought to be of a single shape that is
148: well-characterized by the de Vaucauleurs $r^{1/4}$
149: profile. \cite{caon94} show that surface brightness profiles of
150: elliptical galaxies are better fit by S\'ersic profiles
151: \citep{sersic1968}, which generalize the exponent in the de
152: Vaucauleurs profile to a free parameter. Also, \cite{andredak94} show
153: that many bulge-disk galaxies are better described by a double
154: exponential than an inner $r^{1/4}$ profile with an outer
155: exponential. \cite{andredak95} generalize this to show that bulge-disk
156: galaxies are better fit by inner S\'ersic profiles with outer
157: exponential disks than double exponentials profiles. The S\'ersic
158: function plus outer disk model for bulge-disk galaxies reads
159: \begin{equation}
160: I(r)=I_0\exp\left[-(r/r_0)^{1/n_b} \right ] + I_d\exp\left[-(r/h) \right ]\, ,
161: \end{equation}
162: where $I_0$ and $r_0$ represent the central surface brightness and
163: scale length of the bulge, $I_d$ and $h$ represent the central surface
164: brightness and scale length of the outer disk, and $n_b$ represents
165: the bulge S\'ersic index.
166:
167: It is not surprising that S\'ersic profiles fit bulge surface
168: brightness profiles better than $r^{1/4}$-profiles, since the S\'ersic
169: function has more flexibility due to the extra parameter. However, the
170: new parameter, $n_b$, correlates with many properties of the stellar
171: systems to which it is fit, including but not limited to the
172: following: velocity dispersion $\sigma$ \citep{photplane} , absolute
173: magnitude \citep{graham96}, and effective radius \citep{caon94}. Many
174: authors have shown that these correlations extend to bulges of
175: bulge-disk galaxies
176: \citep{graham2001,macarthur2003,dejong2004,thomas2006}. Additionally,
177: \cite{andredak95} show that the S\'ersic index of bulges correlates
178: with Hubble type, decreasing from $n_b \sim 3.7$ for S0 galaxies to
179: $n_b \sim 1.6$ in Sbc-Sd galaxies. Therefore it is reasonable to
180: assume that it has physical significance. The S\'ersic index is often
181: referred to as the shape parameter, as it is generally taken as a
182: surrogate for properties such as concentration of the surface
183: brightness profile. For a review of the properties of S\'ersic
184: profiles see \cite{graham2005}.
185:
186: The tentative assumption is that the S\'ersic index of a bulge
187: reflects the classical bulge - pseudobulge dichotomy. Lower S\'ersic
188: index might indicate that a bulge is more likely to be a pseudobulge.
189: We do not understand the mechanism that is responsible for determining
190: the S\'ersic indices in pseudobulges (or classical bulges). Yet, it
191: seems plausible that the light distribution be similar to that of a
192: disk, since so many other of the properties of pseudobulges are
193: similar to those of galactic disks. \cite{courteau1996} use bulge-disk
194: decompositions of 243 galaxies to show that the 85\% of bulges in
195: Sb-Sc galaxies are better fit by the double exponential than cuspier
196: $r^{1/4}$ models. Thus, the common conclusion is that pseudobulges
197: are marked by near exponential S\'ersic index
198: (KK04). \cite{scarlata2004} shows with STIS acquisition images that
199: bulges with surface brightness profiles more resembling exponential
200: profiles are more likely to have disk-like morphology (e.g.~spiral
201: arms), yet there is significant scatter to this claim, in their
202: sample. They go on to show that the distribution of central slopes of
203: surface brightness profiles of the bulges in their sample is bimodal
204: when plotted against absolute magnitude.
205:
206: It is yet unknown where pseudobulges should lie in other parameter
207: correlations, such as fundamental plane projections. We do not expect
208: that pseudobulges occupy a significantly different location than
209: classical bulges in fundamental plane parameter space, since the
210: fundamental plane is not known to be bimodal. Many studies of the
211: locations of bulges in structural parameter space exist
212: (e.g.~\citealp{bbf92,graham2001,macarthur2003,dejong2004,thomas2006}),
213: and no significant bimodal behavior is noticed. \cite{carollo1999}
214: remarks, though, that pseudobulges deviate more from the $\mu_e-r_e$
215: relation \citep{k77}. We will investigate this further in this
216: paper. \cite{k93} shows that the majority of bulges are rounder than
217: the outer parts of the disks they reside in, yet a significant
218: minority are as flat as their associated outer disk. A few bulges are
219: even flatter than their outer disk. This behavior correlates with
220: Hubble type; bulges in later type galaxies have flattening more
221: similar to that of the associated outer disk. \cite{fathi2003}
222: carried out bulge-disk decompositions of 70 galaxies on
223: higher-resolution data finding a similar result.
224:
225: As discussed in KK04, pseudobulges are characterized principally by
226: having less random motion per unit stellar light. They are
227: rotation-dominated systems \citep{k93,kk04}. Thus it makes sense that
228: they be flatter. The relative flatness of a bulge to its associated
229: outer disk has also been suggested as a pseudobulge indicator
230: (KK04). We will test this hypothesis in this paper by comparing the
231: flatness of bulges with disk like morphologies to that of bulges with
232: morphologies like those of elliptical galaxies.
233:
234: The properties of pseudobulges are in stark contrast to the expected
235: end result of the hierarchical merging process; one does not expect
236: violent relaxation to produce spiral structure and dynamics that is
237: dominated by ordered motion. Further scenarions for the formation of
238: bulges have been suggested. Clump instabilities in disks at high
239: redshift can form bulge-like structures in simulations
240: \citep{noguchi99}. It is also plausible that gas rich accretion could
241: form dynamically cold bulges. Internal evolution of disks can drive
242: gas and stars to the center of a disk galaxy as well. The population
243: of bulges as a whole and any one particular bulge may be the result of
244: more than one of these processes.
245:
246: However, the connections between bulge and disk stellar populations
247: \citep{peletier1996,macarthur2004}, inter-stellar medium
248: \citep{regan2001bima,fisher2006} and scale lengths
249: \citep{courteau1996} may suggest that pseudobulges form through
250: processes intimately linked to their host disks. Furthermore,
251: \cite{droryfisher2007} find that classical bulges occur in
252: red-sequence galaxies and pseudobulges occur in blue cloud
253: galaxies. \cite{kk04} reviews the case that pseudobulges are not the
254: result of major mergers, but rather that internal disk-evolution may
255: be responsible for them. However, that bulges can form out of the
256: internal evolution of a disk is not a new idea; see, for example,
257: \citet{hohl1975}.
258:
259: Simulations suggest that if disk galaxies do not experience major
260: mergers, they may evolve by redistribution of energy and angular
261: momentum driven by non-axisymmetries such as bars, ovals, and spiral
262: structure \citep{simkin1980,pfenniger1991,debattista2004}, resulting
263: in star formation and bulge-like stellar densities, thus forming
264: pseudobulges. Indeed, a correlation between central star formation
265: rate and the presence of bars and ovals has been detected
266: \citep[e.g.][]{sheth2005,jogee2005,fisher2006}. Also,
267: \cite{peeples2006} find that galaxies with nuclear rings and/or
268: nuclear spirals are more strongly barred. Thus we also investigate the
269: possible connection between driving mechanisms and structural
270: properties.
271: \begin{figure*}[t]
272: \begin{center}
273: %\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{sample_prop.eps}
274: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
275: \end{center}
276: \caption{The distribution of absolute magnitude (left), distance
277: modulus (middle), and Hubble Type (right) for all 77 galaxies in our
278: sample. \label{fig:sample}}
279: \end{figure*}
280:
281: It is, thus, possible that the absence of a classical bulge in a
282: galaxy indicates that the galaxy has not experienced a major merger
283: since the formation of the disk. In this context, pseudobulges may be
284: thought of as more similar to pure disk galaxies that have a surface
285: brightness profile which breaks from the outer exponential profile to
286: a more steep inner surface brightness profile. Though the frequency of
287: pseudobulges has not yet been robustly calculated, if they are common
288: then this implies that many disk galaxies did not suffer major mergers
289: since their formation.
290:
291: This paper is organized as follows. In \S~2 we present the
292: observational data we use, and we discuss the surface brightness
293: fitting procedure. In \S~3 we present results on the location of
294: pseudobulges and classical bulges in various structural parameter
295: correlations. In \S~4 we discuss the flatness of pseudobulges and
296: classical bulges. In \S~5, we discuss behavior of different bulge
297: morphologies (nuclear bars, nuclear spirals, and nuclear rings) in
298: various parameter correlations. In \S~6 we summarize and discuss these
299: results. Finally, the appendix includes an image of each galaxy, all
300: decompositions and a discussion of the robustness of our decomposition
301: and fitting procedure.
302:
303: \section{Methods and Observations}
304:
305: \subsection{The Sample}
306:
307: The aim of this work is to establish whether or not pseudobulges --
308: recognized by the presence of disk-like morphological features as
309: motivated and discussed in KK04 -- can be distinguished from classical
310: bulges simply by structural features in their surface brightness
311: profiles, most prominently their profile shape. Thus we ask whether
312: bulges that contain disk-like morphologies (pseudobulges) have lower
313: S\'ersic index and higher flattening ratios than bulges with
314: elliptical-like morphologies (classical bulges). Answering this
315: question requires high resolution imaging (preferably in the optical
316: bands) to detect the nuclear spirals, bars, and rings; and we need
317: surface brightness profiles with large dynamic range in radius to
318: accurately determine the parameters in Eq.~1 for a bulge-disk
319: decomposition.
320:
321: We choose galaxies observable from the northern hemisphere that have
322: data in the {\em Hubble Space Telescope} (HST) archive. We limit our
323: selection to galaxies closer than $\sim 40$~Mpc to resolve features in
324: the bulge.
325:
326: The link between non-axisymmetries (barred and oval distortions) and
327: secular evolution motivates us to create a sample containing roughly
328: equal numbers of galaxies with a driving agent (galaxies with a bar
329: and/or an oval) and galaxies without a driving agent. Detection of
330: oval distortions are discussed in \cite{k82}. They are identified by
331: nested shelves in the surface brightness profile usually having
332: different position angles. We identify bars by consulting the Carnegie
333: Atlas of Galaxies \citep{carnegieatlas} and the RC3 \citep{rc3}. If a
334: galaxy has both a bar and an oval, we call that galaxy
335: barred. Additionally, we look for bars and ovals in all galaxies using
336: K-band images from 2MASS \citep{2mass}. Note that we do not
337: distinguish grand design spirals as a possible secular driver, though
338: they may be able to generate a similar but less extreme effect as bars
339: do (KK04). We use 39 undriven (no bar and no oval) galaxies and 38
340: driven galaxies (30 barred and 8 ovaled), a total of 77 galaxies.
341:
342: In Fig.~\ref{fig:sample} we show the distribution of global properties
343: of the galaxies in our sample; these are also listed in Table 1. The
344: distribution of the distances of the galaxies in our sample is heavily
345: peaked at 16 Mpc due to the Virgo cluster and has a standard deviation
346: of 6 Mpc. We derive total magnitudes by 2D integration of our surface
347: brightness profiles. The distribution of absolute V magnitudes ranges
348: mostly from -19 to -22 with a median value of -20.5.
349:
350: KK04 compiles data from several different studies to generate
351: preliminary statistics on how the frequency of pseudobulges varies
352: along the Hubble Sequence. They suggest that both pseudobulges and
353: classical bulges exist at intermediate Hubble Types (S0 to Sbc).
354: There appears to be a transition from classical bulges being more
355: frequent at early types (S0-Sb) to pseudobulges being more frequent at
356: later types (Sbc - Sd). They further suggest that classical bulges
357: will be almost non-existent at Hubble types Sc and later. In the right
358: panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sample}, we show the distribution of Hubble
359: Types (taken from \citealp{carnegieatlas}) of the galaxies in our
360: sample. To test for differences between pseudobulges and classical
361: bulges we choose to sample the range of Hubble type from S0 to Sc. If
362: we combine this with our choice of evenly sampling driven and undriven
363: galaxies, we expect that our sample should overemphasize pseudobulges.
364: The distribution of Hubble types is as follows: 13 S0, 2 S0a, 18 Sa, 6
365: Sab, 20 Sb, 11 Sbc, 9 Sc. We will also use 24 E type galaxies from
366: \cite{kormendy2006virgo} as early-type sample in some parameter
367: correlations.
368: \begin{figure*}
369: \begin{center}
370: \includegraphics[height=0.9\textheight]{fig2a.eps}
371: \end{center}
372: \caption{High-resolution {\em HST} images of all bulges in our sample.
373: The images are scaled logarithmically, and the range of shown
374: intensities is chosen to emphasize those features which motivate the
375: bulge classification. For all galaxies we give the galaxy name,
376: imaging instrument used, filter, and the classification. We label bulges classified
377: as classical by 'c' and pseudobulges by 'p'.
378: The images show the inner 40 arcsec (ACS), 36 arcsec (PC2),
379: and 80 arcsec (WF2) of the galaxies.
380: \label{fig:bulgeid} }
381: \end{figure*}
382:
383: \setcounter{figure}{1}
384: \begin{figure*}
385: \begin{center}
386: \includegraphics[height=0.9\textheight]{fig2b.eps}
387: \end{center}
388: \caption{Cont.}
389: \end{figure*}
390:
391: \setcounter{figure}{1}
392: \begin{figure*}
393: \begin{center}
394: \includegraphics[height=0.9\textheight]{fig2c.eps}
395: \end{center}
396: \caption{Cont.}
397: \end{figure*}
398:
399: \setcounter{figure}{1}
400: \begin{figure*}
401: \begin{center}
402: \includegraphics[height=0.9\textheight]{fig2d.eps}
403: \end{center}
404: \caption{Cont.}
405: \end{figure*}
406:
407: \subsection{Identification of pseudobulges}
408:
409: We define ``bulges'' photometrically, as excess light over the inward
410: extrapolation of the surface brightness profile of the outer disk. The
411: region of the galaxy where this excess light dominates the profile is
412: the bulge region. We classify galaxies as having a pseudobulge by
413: their morphology within this bulge region; if the bulge is or contains
414: any of the following features: a nuclear bar, a nuclear spiral, and/or
415: a nuclear ring, then the bulge is called a pseudobulge. Conversely,
416: if the bulge better resembles an elliptical galaxy (relatively
417: featureless isophotes), then the bulge is called a classical
418: bulge. This method is discussed in KK04. The existence/absence of
419: visibly identifiable disk-like structure in a bulge correlates with
420: properties of the bulge and the whole galaxy. The same method is shown
421: to be successful in identifying bulges with higher specific star
422: formation rates \citep{fisher2006} and globally bluer galaxies
423: \citep{droryfisher2007}.
424:
425: Fig.~\ref{fig:bulgeid} shows high-resolution {\em HST} images of the
426: bulge region of all galaxies in our sample. All images are taken in
427: close-to $V$ band filters. Note first that classical bulges (for
428: example NGC~1398, NGC~2775, NGC~2880, and NGC~3115, all in the
429: rightmost column of the first page of the figure) have a smooth
430: stellar light profile. There is no reason evident in the images to
431: think that any of these galaxies harbor a pseudobulge. The bulges fit
432: the description of E-type galaxies. On the other hand, NGC~4030 shows
433: a face-on nuclear spiral (bottom row on the second page). The spiral
434: dominates the radial profile for more than a kiloparsec. NGC~4736
435: (fourth page, second row) also has a nuclear spiral pattern but also
436: has a nuclear bar; note how the spiral arms seem pinched vertically in
437: the image. \cite{mollenhoff1995-n4736} study this nuclear bar in more
438: detail using dynamical modeling. NGC~4371 (third page, middle row) is
439: an S0 galaxy with at least one nuclear bar. NGC~3351 (second page,
440: third row) has a prominent nuclear ring that heavily distorts the
441: surface brightness profile (see Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}); this nuclear
442: ring is quite well known \citep{hubbleatlas}. The bulge of NGC~2903
443: (first page, bottom row) shows a chaotic nuclear region; it appears
444: nearly spiral but is not regular enough over a significant radial
445: range to call it a nuclear spiral.
446:
447: In this paper we classify bulges with near-$V$-band images (F547M,
448: F555W, \& F606W). Thus our method is subject to the effects of dust
449: obscuration. However, the structures used to identify pseudobulges are
450: usually experiencing enhanced star formation rates \citep{fisher2006}.
451: Pseudobulges are, therefore, easier to detect in the optical band
452: passes where the mass-to-light ratios are more affected by young
453: stellar populations, rather than in the near infrared where the
454: effects of dust are less pronounced. It is important to note that
455: classical bulges may have dust in their center, as do many elliptical
456: galaxies \citep{Laueretal05}. In fact, many classical bulges shown in
457: Fig.~\ref{fig:bulgeid} have some dust lanes in their bulges. The
458: presence of dust alone is not enough to classify a galaxy as
459: containing a pseudobulge; instead, it must be of a disk-like nature.
460:
461: \subsection{Data Sources and Surface Photometry}
462:
463: As stated in the introduction, the S\'ersic function provides better
464: fits and more information over two-parameter fitting functions
465: describing surface brightness profiles of bulges and elliptical
466: galaxies. However, this information comes at the price of more
467: detailed observations. \cite{saglia1997} shows that replacing an
468: $r^{1/4}$-model with a S\'ersic model makes little difference in
469: residuals, unless one has data with high dynamic range in
470: radius. Further, the coupling between parameters in the S\'ersic
471: function can be quite high \citep{graham1997}. Thus again, it is
472: necessary to fit the decomposition (Eq.~1) to large radial range in
473: order to minimize these degeneracies. For each galaxy we therefore
474: combine multiple data sources together: high-resolution HST imaging in
475: the center, and ground based wide-field images covering the outer
476: disk. Comments on data sources follow. Table~1 lists the sources of
477: data used for each galaxy.
478: \begin{figure}[t]
479: \begin{center}
480: %\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{nh_nv.eps}
481: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fig3a.eps}
482: %\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{rh_rv.eps}
483: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fig3b.eps}
484: \end{center}
485: \caption{Comparison of structural parameters ($r_0 \& n_b$) derived
486: from bulge-disk decompositions in the $H$-band to those in the $V$-band. The
487: identity relation is marked by the dashed line.\label{fig:nir}}
488: \end{figure}
489:
490: All profiles contain HST data sources. PC2 data has a small
491: field-of-view ($\sim18\times 18$~arcsec$^2$); thus, it is critical to
492: supplement PC2 data with wide field data. ACS/WFC has proven to be an
493: excellent instrument for obtaining large radial fitting range. It
494: provides a reasonable sized field-of-view ($\sim100\times
495: 100$~arcsec$^2$) at high spatial resolution (0.049 arcsec
496: pixel$^{-1}$).
497:
498: For as many galaxies as possible we obtain wide field images from the
499: Prime-Focus-Camera on the McDonald 0.8~m telescope. This instrument
500: provides a large unvignetted field of view ($45\times 45$ arcmin$^2$),
501: and a single CCD detector. Therefore, we can more accurately carry out
502: sky-subtraction. These data generally are the deepest. We also
503: include images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep{sdssdr4},
504: 2Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) and the Isaac Newton Group (ING)
505: Archive. Individual data sources are noted in Table~1.
506:
507: All raw data (McDonald 0.8~m \& ING data) are bias-subtracted,
508: flat-fielded, and illumination corrected. We subtract the sky
509: background by fitting a plane to a smoothed version of the image where
510: the galaxy and bright stars have been removed.
511:
512: \begin{figure*}
513: \begin{center}
514: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig4a.eps}
515: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig4b.eps}
516: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig4c.eps}
517: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig4d.eps}
518: %\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3031fit.eps}
519: %\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3169fit.eps}
520: %\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4448fit.eps}
521: %\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3351fit.eps}
522: \end{center}
523: \caption{We show four example decompositions, spanning the range of
524: the types of profiles that we find in the galaxies investigated in
525: this paper. All data are plotted against $r^{1/4}$ as this
526: projection emphasizes deviations from the fit better than $\log(r)$,
527: and shows the central regions better than plotting against linear
528: radius would. For each galaxy we show a profile (black dots) of
529: (from bottom to top panel) V band surface brightness; residual
530: profile of the data minus $-2.5\log I(r)$, where $I(r)$ is the fit
531: of the data to Eq.~1; and ellipticity profile, where
532: $\epsilon=1-b/a$, and $b/a$ is the axial ratio of the galaxy. In the
533: bottom panel we also show the decomposition: the inner S\'ersic
534: profile and the outer exponential profile as black lines. The
535: vertical hatches on the profile indicate the boundaries of the
536: regions included in the fit, the bottom caption also notes the total
537: range of the fit. Excluded data regions are marked by open symbols,
538: fitted regions by closed symbols. The caption gives the galaxy name,
539: the Hubble type, the total absolute magnitude, the S\'ersic index of
540: the bulge and the root-mean-squared deviation of the fit to the fit
541: region of the data. \label{fig:egprof}}
542: \end{figure*}
543:
544: We calculate Johnson $V$-band magnitude zero points using the
545: transformations in \cite{holtzman1995} for the WFPC2 images and
546: \cite{sirianni2005} for the ACS images. SDSS g and r profiles are
547: converted to a single V-band profile for each galaxy using the
548: transformations in \citet{smithetal2002}. Other profiles are simply
549: shifted to match in surface brightness. These transformations are
550: derived on galactic disk stars, not galaxies. Further, the
551: calculations require color information. We use colors from Hyper-LEDA,
552: which refer to colors of the entire galaxies, and the galaxies in our
553: sample most certainly have non-zero color gradients. Therefore the
554: absolute values of surface brightness in this paper are not expected
555: to be consistent to more than 0.3~mag. However, this does not affect
556: our conclusions which are based the structure in the profiles and not
557: on absolute magnitude. We check that our total magnitudes are
558: consistent with those published in the RC3 and Hyper-LEDA.
559:
560: We use the isophote fitting routine of \cite{bender1987}. We identify
561: and mask interfering foreground objects in each image. Then we fit
562: ellipses to isophotes by least squares. Here, isophotes are sampled
563: by 256 points equally spaced in an angle $\theta$ relating to polar
564: angle by $\tan \theta = (a/b)\,\tan \phi$, where $\phi$ is the polar
565: angle and $b/a$ is the axial ratio. The software determines six
566: parameters for each ellipse: relative surface brightness, center
567: position, major and minor axis lengths, and position angle along the
568: major axis.
569:
570: \subsection{Bulge-Disk Decomposition}
571:
572: We carry out a bulge-disk decomposition on each galaxy in our sample
573: by fitting Eq.~1 to the major axis surface brightness profiles. Our
574: decomposition code is also used by \cite{kormendy2006virgo} to fit S0
575: and E-type galaxies with the disk component ``turned off''. The
576: average root-mean-square deviation is $\sim0.09\pm0.03$ mag
577: arcsec$^{-2}$. The largest deviation of any of the data from its
578: fitted profile is $0.18$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
579:
580: The parameters determined in bulge-disk decomposition with a S\'ersic
581: model bulge are coupled. \cite{macarthur2003} shows that if the bulge
582: is sufficiently large and the resolution is sufficiently small,
583: initial parameter estimates do not affect the final fit too much. For
584: the most part, this is true. Yet, our experience is that initial
585: parameter estimates may still affect the resulting fit. For each
586: galaxy, we begin with a large parameter range that is symmetric about
587: the initial guess. Then we re-fit the galaxy iteratively adjusting the
588: range of allowed parameters to be narrower. This results in slight
589: changes of best-fit values with lower $\chi^2$ than without this
590: iteration. The details of each profile are used to decide the width of
591: available parameter space each parameter is given. Typically the
592: available range for $n_b$ is $\Delta n_b \sim 2-3$.
593:
594: The decomposition is carried out on a major axis profile using the
595: mean isophote brightness. It does not take ellipticity into account
596: during the fitting. However, these galaxies are known to have varying
597: ellipticity profiles \citep{k93,fathi2003}. Thus, we take the mean
598: ellipticity for each component and adjust the luminosity accordingly:
599: $L=(1-\bar{\epsilon})L_{\mathrm{fit}}$. The radius of the component is defined
600: as the radius range within which that component dominates the light of
601: the profile. We also adjust all magnitude dependent quantities
602: (luminosity and surface brightness) for Galactic reddening according
603: to \cite{schlegel}. We use the distances of \cite{tully1998}. We do
604: not make any corrections for extinction within the galaxies being
605: studied.
606:
607: We carry out the bulge-disk decompositions in the $V$ band. This
608: ensures that our results will remain applicable to large surveys
609: commonly done in the optical bands (e.g.\ SDSS). However, the radial
610: variation in age and metallicity that exists within galaxies may bias
611: the parameters of bulge-disk decomposition. \cite{carollo2002} shows
612: that the centers of intermediate type galaxies contain significant
613: structure in $V-I$ color maps, and this variation occurs on scales
614: smaller than the bulge. Thus, there is doubt as to whether the
615: parameters derived on profiles in the middle optical band passes truly
616: reflect the properties of the stellar mass distribution.
617:
618: It is beyond the scope of this paper to investigate the correlations
619: of colors with S\'ersic parameters. Yet, as a check of the stability
620: of structural quantities compared to color gradients, we carry out
621: bulge-disk decompositions on all galaxies in our sample that have
622: archival NICMOS images in the filter $F160W$ ($H$ band). We supplement
623: those data with ground-based wide-field data. For this purpose we use
624: mainly 2MASS data and any H-band data available in NED. We then
625: compare the fit parameters in $V$ to those in $H$. The results are
626: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nir}. In those parameters which do not depend
627: on magnitude ($r_0$ and $n_b$) there is little difference. The average
628: difference is $\Delta_{_{V-H}}n_b\sim-0.03$, and
629: $\Delta_{_{V-H}}\log(r_0)\sim 0.07$. This is similar to the results of
630: other papers that have done decompositions at multiple wavelengths
631: (e.g.~\citealp{graham2001,macarthur2003}).
632:
633: In Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof} we show four examples of our photometry and
634: the bulge-disk decompositions. For each galaxy we show an ellipticity
635: profile, a residual profile, and a surface brightness profile along
636: with the decomposition determined by fitting Eq.~1 to the galaxy's
637: surface brightness profile. These examples are selected to show the
638: range in typical profiles in this paper. The entire sample of fits is
639: shown in the appendix.
640:
641: The top two panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof} shows two galaxies
642: (NGC~3031, left panel; NGC~3169, right panel) that are well described
643: by an inner S\'ersic function and an outer exponential disk. In both
644: profiles the fit covers a dynamic range of $\sim$12 mag
645: arcsec$^{-2}$. NGC~3031 is well fit (RMS=0.06 mag arcsec$^{-2}$) by
646: Eq.~1 over $\Delta \log(r/\mathrm{arcsec})=3.3$ and NGC~3169 for
647: $\Delta \log(r/\mathrm{arcsec})=2.51$. Deviations are small, and there
648: is little-to-no substructure evident in these profiles. Note that each
649: bulge has a nuclear excess of light over the inward extrapolation of
650: the fit, and that this nucleus is excluded from the fit (vertical
651: hatches indicate beginning and end of fit range and excluded data
652: points are marked by open symbols).
653:
654: Despite its successes, the S\'ersic bulge plus outer exponential disk
655: model of bulge-disk galaxies does not account for many features of
656: galaxy surface brightness profiles. Disks of intermediate type
657: galaxies commonly have features such as bars, rings, and lenses (see
658: \citealp{k82} for a description of these). Further, \cite{carollo2002}
659: shows that many bulges of early and intermediate type galaxies contain
660: nuclei. The bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof} shows two such
661: examples of galaxy profiles with significant deviations from the
662: fitted decompositions. NGC~4448 (bottom left) is an example of a
663: barred galaxy in which the bar is an especially prominent perturbation
664: to the outer exponential surface brightness profile. NGC~3351 (bottom
665: right) is an example of a complicated surface brightness profile, with
666: multiple substructures that are not well described by the smooth
667: nature of the bulge-disk model used here. This galaxy contains a
668: nuclear ring near $\sim 4$~arcsec, and a bar from about 20 to
669: 80~arcsec. These galaxies are not well described by Eq.~1, yet we do
670: our best to decompose as many galaxies as possible.
671:
672: Bars, rings, lenses, and similar features do not conform to the smooth
673: nature of Eq.~1, hence we carefully exclude regions of the profile
674: perturbed by such structures from the fit. This is a risky procedure,
675: as it requires selectively removing data from a galaxy's profile, and
676: undoubtedly has an effect on the resulting parameters. We are often
677: helped to identify bars by the structure of the ellipticity
678: profile. Notice the the peak in ellipticity near 50~arcsec in
679: NGC~3351. We try to err on the side of removing the fewest points
680: possible. For those galaxies in which a bar is present, it is our
681: assumption that removing the bar from the fit provides the best
682: estimation of the properties of the underlying bulge and disk. We test
683: our method by removing a typical number of points from a few galaxies
684: with smooth profiles (NGC~2841, NGC~1425, NGC~4203, \& NGC~1325). The
685: result is that S\'ersic index can vary as much as $\Delta n_b\sim
686: 0.5$, and characteristic radius by $\Delta \log(r_0)\sim 0.5$. The
687: variance of these two parameters is tightly coupled and this is
688: reflected by the uncertainty. Central surface brightness was mostly
689: unaffected. If a region is not included in a fit we show that in the
690: figure by using open symbols. A detailed discussion of the effects of
691: bars and other features on the surface brightness profiles is given in
692: the appendix.
693: \begin{figure}[t]
694: \begin{center}
695: %\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{hubble_type.eps}
696: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig5.eps}
697: \end{center}
698: \caption{The bulge-to-total ratio, $B/T$, top, and the ratio of the
699: effective radius to the disk scale length, $r_e/h$, bottom, of
700: classical bulges (red circles) and pseudobulges (blue x's) plotted
701: against Hubble types. The black squares, connected by the black
702: line, represents the average for all bulges (both pseudo- and
703: classical) in each type. \label{fig:hubbletype}}
704: \end{figure}
705:
706:
707: \section{Structural Properties Of Pseudobulges And Classical Bulges}
708: \subsection{Bulge Prominence Of Classical \& Pseudobulges Along The
709: Hubble Sequence}
710:
711: The primary distinction between most previous studies and this one is
712: that we do not treat bulges as an homogeneous set of objects. Here, we
713: report on how morphologically identified pseudobulges and classical
714: bulges, taken to be distinct entities, behave in the parameters
715: obtained from bulge-disk decomposition. Further we wish to know if the
716: S\'ersic index is able to distinguish these two separate bulge types
717: as has been suggested by many authors and not yet systematically tested.
718:
719: Fig~\ref{fig:hubbletype} shows how the bulge-to-total ratio
720: (luminosity of the bulge, divided by total luminosity of the fit;
721: hereafter $B/T$), and the ratio of the bulge half-light radius ($r_e$)
722: to the scale-length of the outer disk ($h$) both correlate with Hubble
723: type. We calculate the effective radius as
724: \begin{equation}
725: r_e=(b_n)^nr_0,
726: \end{equation}
727: where $b_n$ is a proportionality constant whose expansion given in
728: \cite{macarthur2003}. In all figures red circles represent classical
729: bulges and blue crosses represent pseudobulges. In
730: fig~\ref{fig:hubbletype}, the connected black squares show the average
731: for each Hubble type. There are only two S0/a (T=0) galaxies; thus
732: the dip in the average of $B/T$ could merely be small number
733: statistics. Also, a few of the Sc (T=5) galaxies are not shown due to
734: their very small $B/T$.
735: \begin{figure*}[t]
736: \begin{center}
737: %\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{b2t_hist.eps}
738: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig6.eps}
739: \end{center}
740: \caption{Histogram of $\log(B/T)$ (left) and $r_e/h$ (right). Bin
741: spacing is $\delta \log(B/T) = 0.25$ and $\delta (r_e/h)=0.05$. Blue
742: lines represent pseudobulges and red lines are for classical
743: bulges. \label{fig:bthist}}
744: \end{figure*}
745:
746: As shown in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:hubbletype}, bulge-to-total
747: ratio is a decreasing function of Hubble type. This is not surprising
748: as $B/T$ is part of the original classification criteria. This
749: behavior has been found by many authors, for a detailed study see
750: \cite{graham2001}. This at least confirms that our decomposition
751: method is sound, and able to recover the well established correlation.
752:
753: Pseudobulges and classical bulges overlap in range of bulge
754: prominence, shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:bthist}. The
755: average classical bulge has $\langle B/T \rangle = 0.41$. The width of
756: the distribution is 0.22. The average pseudobulge has $\langle B/T
757: \rangle = 0.16$. The width of the distribution is 0.11. Pseudobulges
758: are on average smaller fractions of the total luminosity of the galaxy
759: in which they reside, yet there is significant overlap (see also
760: \citealp{droryfisher2007}). This is no surprise, we would expect
761: pseudobulges to be smaller as they are thought to be products of
762: secular evolution of the disk; hence their luminosity is expected to
763: be limited to some fraction of the luminosity of the disk. On the
764: other hand, classical bulges form independently of their disk,
765: presumably through major mergers. The full range values of $B/T$ is
766: therefore possible.
767:
768: NGC~2950 is a pseudobulge with $B/T=0.51$. It is hard to believe that
769: secular evolution can drive half of the stellar mass into the central
770: region of a galaxy. This galaxy is an SB0 with a prominent nuclear bar
771: and nuclear ring, also noticed by \cite{erwin2003}. Thus, by our
772: definition it is a good pseudobulge candidate. The next most prominent
773: pseudobulge has $B/T=0.35$; NGC~2950 is more than one standard
774: deviation away in the distribution of pseudobulge $B/T$ from the next
775: most prominent pseudobulge. We feel that NGC~2950 is an exceptional
776: case, and should not be taken as a normal pseudobulge. That it is an
777: S0 galaxy strengthens this interpretation. The unusually large $B/T$
778: may be a result of the processes which made the galaxy S0 (for example
779: gas stripping by ram pressure and/or harassment; see \citealp{MKLDO96}),
780: rather than secular evolution. Also, our analysis may be an over
781: simplification of the population of bulges, in that composite systems
782: (``bulges'' with both a pseudobulge and a classical bulge) may
783: exists. This could artificially increase the $B/T$ ratio.
784:
785: \cite{courteau1996} show that the ratio of scale lengths for galaxies
786: when fitted with a double exponential (bulge and disk) is tightly
787: coupled. \cite{macarthur2003} find, with fits to S\'ersic plus outer
788: exponential profiles in galaxies spanning Hubble type Sab to Sd, that
789: the coupling is $\langle r_e/h \rangle = 0.22\pm0.09$, and that the
790: ratio becomes smaller toward later Hubble types (see also lower panel
791: of Fig.~\ref{fig:hubbletype}). It appears that the correlation of
792: $r_e/h$ with Hubble type may be driven primarily by the number of
793: classical bulges in each Hubble type; this statement is very uncertain
794: due to small numbers in each Hubble type, though.
795:
796: The right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:bthist} shows the distribution of
797: $r_e/h$ for the galaxies in our sample (red lines are for classical
798: bulges and blue lines represent the distribution of pseudobulges). We
799: find that $\langle r_e/h \rangle = 0.28\pm0.28$ for all galaxies in
800: our sample, and that $r_e/h$ decreases toward later Hubble types. The
801: average is higher and the scatter is larger than in
802: \cite{macarthur2003}, most likely because our sample targets
803: earlier-type galaxies. Considering bulge types separately, we find
804: that for pseudobulges $\langle r_e/h \rangle = 0.21\pm0.10$, and for
805: classical bulges $\langle r_e/h \rangle = 0.45\pm0.28$. The
806: distribution of $r_e/h$ for pseudobulges is clearly much narrower than
807: that of the classical bulges. Furthermore, $r_e$ and $h$ do not appear
808: to be correlated in classical bulges.
809:
810: Our finding that the half-light radius of pseudobulges is well
811: correlated with the scale length of the outer disk, while the scale
812: length of classical bulges is not correlated with that of the disk is
813: consistent with the interpretation that $r_e \propto h$ is due to a
814: secular formation of pseudobulges. However, inspection of
815: Fig.~\ref{fig:bthist} shows that the range of $r_e/h$ over which we
816: find classical bulges is large and overlaps with the pseudobulges
817: significantly. Thus, $r_e/h$ may not be a good diagnostic tool for
818: identifying pseudobulges and classical bulges; however the finding
819: that the scale length of the disk is correlated with the size of its
820: pseudobulge but not correlated with classical bulges is a strong
821: indication that there indeed is a physical difference between the
822: formation mechanisms of different bulge types.
823:
824: \begin{figure}[t]
825: \begin{center}
826: %\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{sersic_effective_param.eps}
827: \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig7.eps}
828: \end{center}
829: \caption{Correlation of the absolute magnitude ($M_V$), half-light
830: radius ($r_e$), and surface brightness at the half-light radius
831: ($\mu_e$) of bulges with bulge S\'ersic index. Pseudobulges are
832: represented as blue crosses, classical bulges as red circles. We
833: also show elliptical galaxies from \cite{kormendy2006virgo} for
834: comparison, represented by black filled circles. The average
835: uncertainty of the parameters of all bulges is represented by the
836: error bars in the bottom right corner of each
837: panel. \label{fig:eff_param}}
838: \end{figure}
839:
840: \begin{figure}[t]
841: \begin{center}
842: %\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{re_resids.eps}
843: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig8.eps}
844: \end{center}
845: \caption{Residuals of pseudobulges (crosses), classical bulges (open
846: circles), and elliptical galaxies (closed circles) from a fit to the
847: elliptical galaxies given by
848: $\log(r_e/\mathrm{kpc})=2.9\log(n_b)-1.2$.\label{fig:resid} }
849: \end{figure}
850:
851: \subsection{The S\'ersic Index In Bulges}
852: Figure~\ref{fig:eff_param} shows the correlation of bulge properties
853: with the shape of the surface brightness profile measured by the
854: S\'ersic index, $n_b$, of those bulges. We find that no classical
855: bulge has S\'ersic index less than two, and very few pseudobulges
856: ($\sim 10\%$) have S\'ersic index greater than 2. The correlations of
857: S\'ersic index with other structural properties ($r_e$, $\mu_e$, and
858: $M_v$) appear to be different for pseudobulges and classical bulges.
859: This suggests that the S\'ersic index may be used to distinguish
860: pseudobulges from classical bulges.
861:
862: The top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:eff_param} shows the correlation of
863: S\'ersic index with absolute $V$-band bulge magnitude for
864: pseudobulges, classical bulges, and elliptical galaxies. Classical
865: bulges fit well within the correlation set by elliptical galaxies.
866: They cover a range of S\'ersic index from $n_b\sim 2-4.5$, and their
867: absolute magnitude covers the range $M_V\sim -17.5$ to $-21$. Notice
868: that the S\'ersic index of classical bulges is normally smaller than
869: $n=4$, suggesting their similarity to the low-luminosity ellipticals
870: discussed by \cite{kormendy2006virgo}. Classical bulges, yet again,
871: resemble little elliptical galaxies that happen to be surrounded by a
872: disk. The mean pseudobulge absolute magnitude is $\sim 1.2$
873: magnitudes fainter than the average classical bulge magnitude, and the
874: faintest bulges are all pseudobulges. Yet, pseudobulges do no have to
875: be faint: classical bulges are not much brighter than the brightest
876: pseudobulges. Our data cannot show if the brightest pseudobulges are
877: bright because of the nature of their stellar population, or because
878: of greater stellar mass. Nonetheless, pseudobulges are not merely a
879: change in observed properties at low magnitude. Finally, we note that
880: the overall shape of the $M_V-n$ correlation for the super-set of
881: systems represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:eff_param} is similar to those
882: found in previous studies, \citep{graham2001,balcells2003,dejong2004}.
883:
884: The bottom two panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:eff_param} show the correlation
885: of S\'ersic index with the half-light quantities (radius containing
886: half the light, $r_e$, and surface brightness at that radius, $\mu_e$)
887: of pseudobulges, classical, bulges, and elliptical galaxies. The
888: results are similar to those in the $M_V-n$ plane. Classical bulges
889: exist within the bounds set by elliptical galaxies, more specifically
890: by low-luminosity ellipticals. Pseudobulges, on the other hand,
891: populate the small $n$ extreme of this correlation. The smallest
892: objects, in radius, are pseudobulges. Yet, pseudobulges in general
893: are not that much smaller on average than classical bulges and
894: low-luminosity ellipticals: the mean effective radius of pseudobulges
895: lies within the range of effective radii spanned by the classical
896: bulges and elliptical galaxies.
897: \begin{figure}[t]
898: \begin{center}
899: %\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{sersic_distrib.eps}
900: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig9.eps}
901: \end{center}
902: \caption{Histograms of bulge S\'ersic index, $\log(n_b)$, by bulge
903: type. The top panel shows the histogram of all objects. The bottom
904: panel shows pseudobulges (blue lines with mode $\log(n_b)\sim0.22$)
905: and classical bulges + elliptical galaxies (red lines, mode
906: $\log(n_b)\sim0.54$). We also overplot Gaussian distributions that
907: fit the histograms. Histograms are normalized by the total
908: number of galaxies in each group, so that each bin reflects the
909: frequency of S\'ersic index within that object
910: class. \label{fig:dist}}
911: \end{figure}
912:
913: To more strongly emphasize the difference between pseudobulges from
914: classical bulges and ellipticals (hot stellar systems), we show the
915: residuals of all galaxies to the \cite{caon94} relation $r_e\propto
916: \log(n_b)$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:resid}. We fit this correlation to the
917: elliptical galaxies only, and the resulting relation is $\log(r_e/
918: \mathrm{kpc}) = 2.9 \log(n_b) - 1.2$. E-type galaxies and classical
919: bulges have similar amounts of scatter. Pseudobulges show a marked
920: difference and systematically deviate further from the correlation as
921: $n_b$ gets smaller whereas the scatter among classical bulges is
922: contained within the region occupied by ellipticals. Thus it appears
923: that pseudobulges do not relate $n_b$ to $r_e$ in the same way as
924: elliptical galaxies and classical bulges do. It is not clear from the
925: bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:eff_param} whether S\'ersic index
926: correlates at all with effective radius for pseudobulges.
927:
928: Inspection of Fig.~\ref{fig:eff_param} shows that pseudobulges and
929: classical bulges have separate distributions of bulge S\'ersic index;
930: the value that distinguishes the two types of bulges appears to be
931: $n_b\sim 2.$ Pseudobulges have S\'ersic index smaller than $n_b \sim
932: 2$; classical bulges have larger values than $n_b \sim 2$. We show
933: this explicitly in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist} which shows the distributions
934: of $\log(n_b)$ for pseudobulges (blue lines) and the superset of
935: classical bulges and elliptical galaxies (red lines), both binned to
936: $\delta \log(n_b)=0.03$. We also show a histogram of all objects
937: (pseudobulges, classical bulges, and elliptical galaxies) counted
938: together. Each histogram is normalized by the number of objects in
939: that group, so that the counts reflect the frequency of S\'ersic index
940: within each class. Before discussing these distributions any further,
941: we must strongly qualify this result. The sample studied in this paper
942: is in no way complete. Thus, the relative abundance of pseudobulges
943: and classical bulges cannot be determined from this
944: distribution. However, we wish to study the distribution of S\'ersic
945: indices in different bulge types. We do the best we can with the data
946: we have at present; when relevant, we attempt to point out how our
947: sample selection may bias results. We note that distributions of bulge
948: S\'ersic indices in volume limited samples have been shown to be
949: bimodal \citep{allen2006}. We present any numbers derived from
950: analysis of these distributions as preliminary.
951:
952: The top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:dist} shows that the distribution of
953: S\'ersic indices are clearly bimodal. This bimodality is completely
954: coincident with the dichotomy in bulge morphology. The average values
955: of bulges S\'ersic index for pseudobulges and classical bulges are
956: $1.69\pm0.59$ and $3.49\pm0.60$, respectively, and the average of the
957: superset of classical bulges and elliptical galaxies is $3.78\pm
958: 1.5$. The range of Hubble types chosen for this sample (S0-Sc)
959: certainly biases the distribution of S\'ersic index to higher values
960: since the S\'ersic index has been found to get smaller at later Hubble
961: types \citep{graham2001,macarthur2003}. It is worth noting that the
962: average uncertainty of a bulge (pseudo- or classical) is comparable to
963: the standard deviation of either of these distributions, $\langle
964: \Delta n_b \rangle = 0.60$. Inspection of Fig.~\ref{fig:eff_param}
965: shows that neither $\log(r_e)$ nor $\mu_e$ show a bimodal
966: distribution.
967:
968: We fit a Gaussian to each histogram in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist} and
969: solve for the S\'ersic index where the frequencies are
970: equal. Because our sample is not volume limited, we weight the
971: distributions such that the number of galaxies earlier than Hubble
972: type Sc with pseudobulges is equal to the number of galaxies with
973: classical bulges. We also solve for the case with 1/3 pseudobulges, and
974: finally 2/3 pseudobulges. We find the critical S\'ersic index to be
975: $n_{crit} = 2.2\pm 0.1$.
976: \begin{figure}[t]
977: \begin{center}
978: %\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{fund_plane_proj.eps}
979: \includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{fig10.eps}
980: \end{center}
981: \caption{Two photometric projections of the fundamental plane. All
982: symbols are the same as figure \ref{fig:eff_param}.\label{fig:fund}
983: }
984: \end{figure}
985:
986: \begin{figure*}[t]
987: \begin{center}
988: %\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{ellipticity.eps}
989: \includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{fig11.eps}
990: \end{center}
991: \caption{Ratio of average ellipticity of the bulge to that of the
992: disk. As usual, pseudobulges are represented by blue crosses and
993: classical bulges by open red circles. This ratio is plotted against
994: S\'ersic index of the bulge (left), bulge-to-total luminosity ratio
995: (middle), and Hubble type (right). \label{fig:ellip}}
996: \end{figure*}
997: Of the 52 pseudobulges, 5 have S\'ersic index significantly above two
998: (two pseudobulges have $n_b\sim 2$). The interested reader can inspect
999: their surface brightness profile in the appendix, which shows fits to
1000: all surface brightness profiles. We take a few lines to discuss these
1001: galaxies here. NGC~4314 is an SBa galaxy with $n_b=2.37\pm 0.78$; this
1002: fit appears good, although a significant amount of the profile is not
1003: included due to the outer bar and nuclear ring. NGC~4258 is an oval
1004: galaxy, with $n_b=2.69\pm 0.48$. The outer oval ring affects the
1005: surface brightness profile of the outer disk, and thus the fit covers
1006: a narrow range. However, this is unlikely to affect the fit of the
1007: bulge too much, especially given the relatively low uncertainty in
1008: S\'ersic index in this fit. NGC~3627 is an Sb galaxy with $n_b=2.90\pm
1009: 0.83$. Its bar is not easily detectable, and thus not removed from the
1010: fit, as we try not to remove any unnecessary points. NGC~3642 is an Sb
1011: galaxy with $n_b=3.37\pm0.61$, the profile does not go very deep, and
1012: may be allowing $n_b$ to be artificially high. Finally, NGC~4826 has
1013: the largest S\'ersic index of any bulge classified as a pseudobulge,
1014: and the fit appears quite good, unlike the others. We take these
1015: galaxies as exceptions rather than the rule, future studies comparing
1016: alternative methods of pseudobulge detection (e.g.\ kinematics) will
1017: help shed light on their true nature. We remind the reader again that
1018: we are not classifying systems as composites, and these may have an
1019: effect. If for example a pseudobulge is embedded in a classical bulge
1020: (or vice versa), we might visually identify the pseudobulge even
1021: though the stellar light distribution is set by the classical
1022: bulge. Still, the dividing line of $n_b \sim 2$ is 90\% successful at
1023: identifying pseudobulges, and thus is a good detector of pseudobulges.
1024:
1025:
1026: \subsection{Fundamental Plane Projections}
1027:
1028: Figure~\ref{fig:fund} shows the correlations of $\mu_e-r_e$ and
1029: $M_v-\mu_e$, two projections of the fundamental plane
1030: \citep{djorgovski1987,dressler1987,faber1989}. The top correlation
1031: shows the magnitude versus surface brightness plane, and the bottom
1032: panel shows the $\mu_e-r_e$ relation \citep{k77}. While the $M_V$
1033: versus $\mu_e$ plot has a lot of scatter, especially in the
1034: pseudobulges, the radius-surface brightness plane shows significantly
1035: less scatter. Yet in both of these fundamental plane projections,
1036: those bulges which are further from the correlations established by
1037: the elliptical galaxies are pseudobulges. For those pseudobulges that
1038: deviate from the fundamental plane correlation in Fig.~\ref{fig:fund}
1039: that deviation is towards lower densities.
1040:
1041: This behavior has been noticed in the past. \cite{carollo1999} finds
1042: that exponential bulges are systematically lower in effective surface
1043: brightness than those better fit by an $r^{1/4}$-profile. We note that
1044: this could be an effect of only fitting either $r^{1/4}$ or
1045: exponentials rather than a S\'ersic function to the bulge profiles.
1046: If a bulge is not completely exponential then it may force other
1047: parameters to compensate for the more restrictive parameterization of
1048: the profile shape. \cite{falcon2002} find that bulges which deviate
1049: from the edge-on projection of the fundamental plane are found in late
1050: type (Sbc) galaxies. However, at least with the galaxies in our
1051: sample, we cannot say unambiguously that this is a function of
1052: differing bulge formation, because those bulges in Fig.~\ref{fig:fund}
1053: that deviate significantly from the correlations defined by the
1054: elliptical galaxies are also very low $B/T$. Thus, it could be that
1055: the potential of the bulge is more affected by the outer disk.
1056: % {\bf Interesting sideline: so where would the disks lie in these plots?}
1057:
1058: In fact, when looking at the pseudobulges in Fig.~\ref{fig:fund}
1059: alone, one would not infer the presence of a strong correlation of
1060: either magnitude or effective radius with surface brightness. This is
1061: another indication that pseudobulges and classical bulges are
1062: different classes of objects.
1063: \begin{figure*}[t]
1064: \begin{center}
1065: %\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{morph_hists.eps}
1066: \includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{fig12.eps}
1067: \end{center}
1068: \caption{In the bottom panels, we show the distribution of o S\'ersic
1069: index (bottom left), ratio of ellipticities (bottom middle), and
1070: $B/T$ (bottom right) for different bulge morphologies. The bulge
1071: types are denoted by nS=nuclear spiral, nB=nuclear bar, nR=nuclear
1072: Ring, nP=nuclear patchiness, and C=classical bulge. We also show the
1073: comparison of the presence of driving mechanism (N=no driver,
1074: O=oval, and B=bar) to the S\'ersic index (top left), ratio of
1075: ellipticities (top middle), and $B/T$ (top
1076: right). \label{fig:bmorph} }
1077: \end{figure*}
1078:
1079: \section{Flattening Of Classical Bulges And Pseudobulges}
1080:
1081: There has been very little work on the distribution of flattenings of
1082: bulges albeit the structures present in pseudobulges (e.g.\ nuclear
1083: spirals or nuclear bars) suggest that pseudobulges should have higher
1084: angular momentum and thus be flat stellar systems. However, the end
1085: products of secular evolution need not be flat \citep{k93}. Bar
1086: buckling and unstable disks can both drive stars higher above the
1087: plane of the disks \citep{pfenniger1990,friedli1999}, thus creating a
1088: pseudobulge that is less flat than its associated outer
1089: disk. Nonetheless, the data of \cite{kent1985} show that many bulges
1090: have median flattenings that are similar or greater than the median of
1091: the outer disk, and that flat bulges are more common in late-type
1092: galaxies. \cite{fathi2003} find a similar result that
1093: $\epsilon_{bulge}/\epsilon_{disk}>0.9$ in 36\% of S0-Sb galaxies and
1094: 51\% Sbc-Sm galaxies (where $\epsilon=1-b/a$). However, note that
1095: \cite{mollenhoff2001} do not find this result, they find very few
1096: bulges are as flat as disks in ground based $JHK$ imaging.
1097:
1098: \cite{kk04} include the flattening of bulges (as manifest through the
1099: ratio of bulge ellipticity to that of the disk) in their list of
1100: preliminary criteria for identifying pseudobulges. We can test this
1101: hypothesis with our sample. Figure~\ref{fig:ellip} shows the ratio of
1102: mean ellipticity of the bulge to that of the outer disk ($\langle
1103: \epsilon_b\rangle/\langle\epsilon_d\rangle$) for galaxies in this
1104: study. We do not include galaxies with average disk ellipticity less
1105: than 0.2, as face-on projections of galaxies do not allow the
1106: flattening to be determined. Also, galaxies with $B/T > 0.5$ are
1107: removed; if the bulge dominates the entire potential it may set the
1108: shape of the disk and therefore affect the disk's ellipticity making
1109: it more like its own. To calculate the average ellipticity of the
1110: profile we use only the data points that are also included in the fit
1111: (filled circles in Figs.~\ref{fig:egprof} and in the Appendix). It is
1112: a matter of interpretation as to what features are a part of
1113: pseudobulges, especially in light of the fact that some nuclei may be
1114: formed secularly along with the pseudobulge. However, as a matter of
1115: consistency we choose to focus only on those isophotes we call the
1116: ``bulge'' from the bulge-disk decompositions. The boundary between the
1117: bulge and disk is chosen as the radius at which the surface brightness
1118: of the S\'ersic function equals the surface brightness of the
1119: exponential disk in the decomposition. Yet, in many galaxies
1120: contamination from the disk artificially raises the average
1121: ellipticity of the bulge. This contamination is evident in the
1122: ellipticity profile. Thus, we choose to average the bulge over a
1123: region in which there is little contamination present. Those radii are
1124: given in Table~2.
1125:
1126: The leftmost panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:ellip} compares $\langle
1127: \epsilon_b\rangle/\langle\epsilon_d\rangle$ to bulge S\'ersic index
1128: for pseudobulges and classical bulges. It is quite evident that
1129: classical bulges, in our sample, are not as flat as pseudobulges. The
1130: average ratio of ellipticities of pseudobulges is $0.79\pm 0.1$,
1131: whereas the average ratio for classical bulges is $0.49\pm 0.14$. In
1132: fact, the flattest classical bulge ($\langle
1133: \epsilon_b\rangle/\langle\epsilon_d\rangle=0.75$) is less flat than
1134: the average pseudobulge.
1135: \begin{figure}[t]
1136: \begin{center}
1137: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{bt_n.eps}
1138: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig13.eps}
1139: \end{center}
1140: \caption{Structural parameters of bulges as a function of the environment.
1141: Field glaxies with classical bulges are
1142: marked by open squares, field pseudobulges with open diamonds. Cluster
1143: galaxies with classical bulges are marked by X's, cluster pseudobulge
1144: galaxies by crosses. All classical bulges are marked by red symbols, pseudobulges by blue symbols.
1145: \label{fig:env_n} }
1146: \end{figure}
1147:
1148: \begin{figure}[t]
1149: \begin{center}
1150: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{bt_n.eps}
1151: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig14.eps}
1152: \end{center}
1153: \caption{As in fig.~\ref{fig:env_n}, we distinguish those those
1154: galaxies that exist in cluster (or group) environments (crossed
1155: symbols) from those that exist in the field (open symbols). Symbol
1156: color reflects bulge type, as before. Bulge-to-total ratio is
1157: plotted against absolute magnitude of the bulge.\label{fig:env_bt} }
1158: \end{figure}
1159:
1160: The middle and rights panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:ellip} compare this
1161: ratio to the bulge-to-total ratio and Hubble type,
1162: respectively. Classical bulges show no obvious trend of $\langle
1163: \epsilon_b\rangle/\langle\epsilon_d\rangle$ with $B/T$ or Hubble
1164: type. They are tightly clustered about the mean value $\sim0.6\pm
1165: 0.1$. Pseudobulges however show a slight correlation of $\langle
1166: \epsilon_b\rangle/\langle\epsilon_d\rangle$ with $B/T$. This
1167: correlation indicates that more prominent (in $B/T$) pseudobulges are
1168: slightly flatter. However, the trend is weak, and has large
1169: scatter. Finally, we find a similar result to \cite{k93} and
1170: \cite{fathi2003}, namely that flatter bulges are more frequent in
1171: later-type galaxies. Furthermore, this trend only exists for
1172: pseudobulges.
1173:
1174: Invariably the flattest bulges are pseudobulges. However, we do not
1175: wish to overstate this result. It is possible that asymmetric dust
1176: extinction leads to higher apparent flattening in the V band. Future
1177: work at near-to-mid IR wavelengths is likely to provide less ambiguous
1178: results.
1179:
1180: \section{Pseudobulges As A Class Of Objects}
1181:
1182: In this paper we identify pseudobulges as having any, but not
1183: necessarily all, of several structures (nuclear bars, rings, and
1184: ovals). We treat bulges with these structures as a group. The
1185: motivation for doing so is that all these phenomena are similar to
1186: properties that are commonly associated with high specific angular
1187: momentum systems. At least in the sense that they are the complement
1188: of classical bulges they can be treated as a group. However, here we
1189: have to ask the following question: do thusly identified pseudobulges
1190: act as a single class of objects or do significant differences exist
1191: among the objects we are identifying as pseudobulges?
1192:
1193: Figure~\ref{fig:bmorph} suggests an answer to this question. The left
1194: panels in the figure show the distribution of bulge properties for
1195: bulges that have smooth isophotes (C=classical), bulges with nuclear
1196: spirals (nS), bulges with nuclear bars (nB), bulges with nuclear rings
1197: (nR), and bulges with a chaotic nuclear patchiness that resembles late
1198: type galaxies (nP). See Fig.~\ref{fig:bulgeid} for example images of
1199: each of these features. In S\'ersic index, ellipticity ratio (bulge to
1200: disk), and bulge-to-total ratio there is no significant difference
1201: among the types of morphologies we call a pseudobulge.
1202:
1203: Bulges with chaotic nuclear-disk-like patchiness (nP) seem to have
1204: smaller S\'ersic index, and are more flat. It is unclear why this
1205: might be. This may be driven by them having smaller $B/T$ and thus
1206: them being more affected by the disk potential. We also note that
1207: pseudobulges with $n_b>2$ are almost all in bulges with nuclear
1208: spirals. It is possible that these bulges are not truly a spiral,
1209: instead some other phenomenon, like contamination of the light by the
1210: outer disk, is causing us to identify them as pseudobulges. However,
1211: in each parameter the distinction appears to be between classical
1212: bulges and the rest of the objects, rather than among the objects we
1213: call pseudobulges.
1214:
1215: We also show S\'ersic index, ellipticity ratio (bulge to disk), and
1216: bulge-to-total ratio as a function of secular driving mechanism. We
1217: separate galaxies as having no driving mechanism, an oval disk, or a
1218: bar. Notice once again that we do not set grand design spiral as a
1219: class of object. There seems to be little differences in the averages,
1220: except ovaled galaxies have smaller S\'ersic index and flatter
1221: bulges. The phenomenon of flat bulges does not appear to require the
1222: presence of a bar. Thus it is not likely that all flat bulges are
1223: small bulges stretched by a bar potential making them flat. Also
1224: notice that the distributions of parameters for barred, oval, and
1225: normal spirals is roughly the same. Thus it does not seem likely that
1226: our method of removing the bar is artificially changing the bulge-disk
1227: decomposition parameters.
1228:
1229: \section{Environmental Effects}
1230:
1231: Secular evolution is not the only theory for building bulges that look
1232: like disks. Other possibilities such as extremely gas rich accretion
1233: events, distant gravitational encounters, or gravitational
1234: interactions with a cluster potential could all drive gas to the
1235: center of galaxies to increase $B/T$, as found by
1236: \cite{mastropietro2005}. \cite{kannapan2004} find that blue bulges are
1237: statistically more likely to have companion galaxies within
1238: 100~kpc. Further, counter-rotating gas is frequently observed in
1239: spiral galaxies, and is taken as a sign of the galaxy having accreted
1240: galaxies in their past. Yet, pseudobulges are much more common in
1241: late-type galaxies, and the well known morphology-density relation
1242: \citep{dressler1980} shows that late-type galaxies are not found in
1243: dense environments. Is it possible that pseudobulges in the field are
1244: formed through different mechanisms than those in cluster
1245: environments? We can not know the answer to this for certain, however
1246: we can look for signatures for such effects in our data.
1247:
1248: In Fig.~\ref{fig:env_n} we show our primary result again, namely that
1249: pseudobulges have a lower S\'ersic index than classical bulges, but
1250: here we also mark environment. Field glaxies with classical bulges are
1251: marked by open squares, field pseudobulges with open diamonds. Cluster
1252: galaxies with classical bulges are marked by X's, cluster pseudobulge
1253: galaxies by crosses. There seems to be no significant differences in
1254: the structure of the surface brightness profile between the
1255: pseudobulges that reside in the field galaxies and the ones in cluster
1256: galaxies. Cluster pseudobulges are not higher mass nor systematically
1257: different in radial size than field pseudobulges. Nor are their
1258: surface brightness profiles preferentially steeper in clusters.
1259:
1260: The same holds for $B/T$: there is no substantial difference between
1261: pseudobulges in the field versus clustered environments. If
1262: pseudobulge formation was driven primarily by tidal encounters with
1263: distant galaxies, one would expect that this effect should be enhanced
1264: in cluster environments, where such encounters are more frequent. This
1265: would result in more massive pseudobulges existing in cluster
1266: environments. Our sample does not seem to indicate that pseudobulges
1267: are any more luminous in cluster environments than in the field. We
1268: feel that this supports the notion that externally driven disk
1269: evolution is not likely the dominant affect in driving pseudobulge
1270: formation.
1271:
1272: Our results in no way rule out the possibility that pseudobulges are
1273: formed by gas-rich minor mergers. If we take an example of merging our
1274: Galaxy with one of the Magellanic clouds, and if this is done $\sim$1
1275: Gyr, when the gas fractions were much higher, it is entirely plausible
1276: that the result could look similar to what we call a
1277: pseudobulge. However, it is not certain if such a system would still
1278: be actively forming stars today, or if pseudobulge formation through
1279: minor mergers could only happen in extreme cases (e.g.\ prograde
1280: collisions at low inclination). Also, it is not clear how such
1281: accretion-driven formation of pseudobulges could maintain the
1282: bulge-disk correlations discussed in the previous sections.
1283: % For all those people with simulations of mergers that produce rapidly
1284: % rotating bulges... it would be nice to have one refernece.
1285:
1286: \section{Summary \& Discussion}
1287:
1288: The main result of this paper is that bulge S\'ersic index, $n_b$, is
1289: bimodally distributed in intermediate type galaxies where both
1290: classical bulges and pseudobulges exist. A value of $n_b\simeq 2$
1291: marks the boundary for separating morphologically-identified
1292: pseudobulges from classical bulges. Below $n_b=2$ no classical bulges
1293: are found, and above it very few pseudobulges are found. We also find
1294: that galaxies which are identified as pseudobulges, using either bulge
1295: morphology or bulge S\'ersic index, are flatter than classical
1296: bulges. Thus suggesting that on average these systems are more
1297: disk-like in both their morphology and shape than are classical
1298: bulges. Pseudobulges exist that are as round as classical bulges, yet,
1299: invariably the flattest bulges are all pseudobulges. In both S\'ersic
1300: index and flattening ratio, our results show a homogeneity in
1301: classical bulge properties, and a greater dispersion in pseudobulge
1302: properties. That is to say, classical bulges, in our sample, do not
1303: have S\'ersic index less than two, nor do they have high ratios of
1304: bulge-to-disk ellipticity. Pseudobulges, on average, have lower $B/T$
1305: than classical bulges, however we find pseudobulges with $B/T$
1306: extending to $\sim 0.35$.
1307:
1308: We find that the half-light radius of pseudobulges is well correlated
1309: with the scale length of the outer disk, while the scale length of
1310: classical bulges is not correlated with that of the disk. This is
1311: consistent with the interpretation that $r_e \propto h$ is due to a
1312: secular formation of pseudobulges. Also, the fact that the scale
1313: length of the disk is correlated with the size of its pseudobulge but
1314: not correlated with the size of classical bulges is a strong
1315: indication that there indeed is a physical difference between the
1316: formation mechanisms of these different bulge types.
1317:
1318: In photometric fundamental plane projections, pseudobulges populate
1319: and extend the low luminosity end of the range occupied by classical
1320: bulges and elliptical galaxies. Pseudobulges deviate more from the
1321: relations set by the elliptical galaxies than classical bulges, and
1322: preferably towards lower density. In fact, it does not seem that on
1323: their own pseudobulges would establish any of these correlations,
1324: especially $M_V - \mu_e$.
1325:
1326: In all correlations investigated in this work we find that the
1327: fundamental distinction is between classical bulges and pseudobulges.
1328: We do not find significant differences within the class of
1329: morphologies we identify as pseudobulges (nuclear spirals, nuclear
1330: bars, nuclear rings, and chaotic nuclear patchiness).
1331:
1332: Is it possible that identifying pseudobulges visually using nuclear
1333: morphology is subject to an inherit flaw? That being that these
1334: systems are by definition bulge-disk systems, and thus is it possible
1335: that classical bulges coexist over large radius with the central parts
1336: of a disk. Pseudobulges in S0 galaxies exemplify this concern. In many
1337: ways elliptical galaxies and S0s are thought to be the extremes of a
1338: continuum of properties. Embedded disks are known to exist in
1339: elliptical galaxies (see, e.g.\ \citealp{SB95}). Would we call such a
1340: system where the embedded disk had a nuclear bar a pseudobulge? Most
1341: likely not. However, in S0s, which by definition have lower $B/T$, we
1342: are inclined to do so. Clearly, if there is no sharp change in
1343: properties along the E-S0 continuum, there should be some composite
1344: systems with secularly formed structure in the disk and a classical
1345: (i.e.\ kinematically hot) bulge. (Note, though, that many S0s resemble
1346: defunct later type disk galaxies much more than they do resemble
1347: elliptical galaxies as suggested by \citealp{vdB76}). This may be the
1348: case in NGC~2950, yet it does not appear to be the
1349: rule. \cite{erwin2004composites} show that many bulges have more
1350: complicated dynamical profiles, with both hot an cold components. Yet,
1351: pseudobulges show a remarkable similarity to disk stellar populations,
1352: ISM, and star formation rates. These similarities have been shown in
1353: the flatness of stellar population gradients \citep{peletier1996}, and
1354: the similarity of CO profiles to optical light
1355: \citep{regan2001bima}. \cite{helfer2003} show that many CO gas maps of
1356: bulge-disk galaxies have holes in their center, but also many CO
1357: profiles rise steeply to their center. A quick comparison of with our
1358: sample shows that those holes are found in classical bulges (e.g.\
1359: NGC~2841). \cite{fisher2006} shows that the nuclear morphology of
1360: galaxies (as used here) predicts the shape of the 3.6-8.0 micron color
1361: profile: disk-like bulges have flat color profiles, and E-like bulges
1362: have holes in 8.0 micron emission. If we were merely mistakenly
1363: identifying disks superimposed on bulges as physically different
1364: pseudobulges, we'd expect to find larger $B/T$ for such systems as
1365: compared to the bulges where we do not see evidence for the presence
1366: of a disk which we call classical in this work. This is because of the
1367: added light of the disk onto a fraction of bulges drawn from the same
1368: underlying distribution. However, we do not find this to be the case.
1369: Fig.~\ref{fig:bthist} shows that pseudobulges are on average smaller
1370: than classical bulges.
1371: \begin{figure}[t]
1372: \begin{center}
1373: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{bt_n.eps}
1374: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig15.eps}
1375: \end{center}
1376: \caption{Bulge-to-total ratio (lower panel) and ratio of the bulge
1377: half-light radius to the scale length of the disk (top panel)
1378: plotted against the logarithm of the bulge S\'ersic index. As
1379: before, classical bulges are represented by open red circles and
1380: pseudobulges by blue crosses.\label{fig:btn} }
1381: \end{figure}
1382:
1383: It is not clear whether pseudobulges participate in the various
1384: correlations presented in this paper. If we look at the pseudobulges
1385: alone, they only show a convincing correlation in the Kormendy
1386: relation ($\mu_e-r_e$). Their distribution better resembles scatter
1387: diagrams in the $M_v-\mu_e$, $\mu_e-n$, and $r_e-n$ planes. However,
1388: it would seem to be an odd coincidence that in every parameter
1389: combination pseudobulges just happen to fall in the right location to
1390: extend the correlations set by the classical bulges and the elliptical
1391: galaxies. Putting all this together implies that we do not really
1392: understand the details of pseudobulge formation very well. It is also
1393: possible that the decomposition of pseudobulges may not be an
1394: appropriate procedure. Bulge-disk decomposition assumes that the
1395: structures are distinct (and that light extends to radius of
1396: infinity). If we accept that pseudobulges are formed through disk
1397: phenomena, then such a bulge-disk decomposition may not be an adequate
1398: description of those systems. In reality they might simply be a
1399: component of galactic disk. Also, parameters derived from the S\'ersic
1400: function are coupled \citep{graham1997}. Thus, treating pseudobulges
1401: in the same way as classical bulges may artificially force them to
1402: extend some photometric correlations.
1403:
1404: Concerning the six bulges with disk-like morphology near their centers
1405: that have $n_b>2$, two have $\langle
1406: \epsilon_b\rangle/\langle\epsilon_d\rangle > 0.75$ (the maximum of
1407: classical bulges), and NGC~4314 has a very prominent star forming
1408: nuclear ring, making this bulge a strong candidate for being a
1409: pseudobulge. This galaxy might be an example for a composite
1410: system. Their existence certainly underscores the value of having as
1411: much information as possible when diagnosing bulge types. Future work
1412: may prove illuminating. For example, to what extent should we trust
1413: bulge morphology as an indicator of secular evolution? It is possible
1414: for the human eye to mistake merely the presence of dust for spiral
1415: structure?
1416:
1417: We also find that the ratio of scale lengths, $r_e/h$, in pseudobulges
1418: is more tightly correlated and closer to those values reported by
1419: other authors (e.g.~\citealp{macarthur2003}) than in classical
1420: bulges. However, the range in values of $r_e/h$ for classical bulges
1421: and pseudobulges are similar; therefore this does not provide a good
1422: diagnostic tool for finding pseudobulges. Pseudobulges extend the
1423: parameter correlations of photometric quantities ($r_e$, $\mu_e$,
1424: $M_V$, and $n_b$). However in many of these parameters it is unclear
1425: if pseudobulges actually show a correlation on their own.
1426:
1427: We can compare the structural properties of the bulges in our sample
1428: the output of simulation. Unfortunately simulations of galaxies that
1429: resemble real galaxies including stars, dark matter, gas and star
1430: formation (and possibly feedback) are quite difficult. Thus there does
1431: not exist a statistically relevant set of simulations for full
1432: comparison. Nonetheless, we can compare our results to those that
1433: currently exist.
1434:
1435: \cite{debattista2004} provides a set of simulations that generate
1436: bulges from bar buckling in pure stellar (no gas) systems. The
1437: resulting bulges typically have $n_b\sim1.5$, which is consistent with
1438: what we find. The bulges in our sample tend to be more round than
1439: their associated outer disk, and \cite{debattista2004} separate their
1440: bulges based on flattening ratios. So we will only compare to those
1441: bulges that are less round than the outer disk. Their simulated
1442: galaxies have $B/D=0.2-1.0$ (where $B/D$ is bulge-to-disk light
1443: ratio). Where as our sample has a median $B/D=0.12$ with a standard
1444: deviation of $0.20$. Further, they are able to recover the coupling of
1445: $r_e$ and $h$ that we find in pseudobulges. Thus our pseudobulges tend
1446: to be a bit smaller. It may be that bar-buckling is one way to make a
1447: pseudobulge, as indicated by the the fact that those simulated bulges
1448: from \cite{debattista2004} are contained within the set of
1449: pseudobulges, but do not span the whole range in properties.
1450:
1451: We reiterate a statement by \cite{andredak1998}, that is also
1452: discussed in \cite{kk04}, namely that we do not really understand why
1453: pseudobulges should have a certain S\'ersic index. It is
1454: understandable that mergers would drive up the S\'ersic index, as
1455: discussed by \cite{vanalbada82} and \cite{kormendy2006virgo}, and thus
1456: classical bulges are found with higher S\'ersic index.
1457: \cite{aguerri2001} simulates minor mergers (accretion of satellites on
1458: the order of the mass of the bulge) in bulge-disk galaxies. They show
1459: that the S\'ersic index grows as the amount of mass accreted becomes
1460: larger. \cite{eliche2006} takes the study of satellite accretion to
1461: lower densities than those simulations of \cite{aguerri2001}. Their
1462: simulations do not include gas and star formation, and thus as with
1463: the \cite{debattista2004} simulations they should be read with that
1464: caveat in mind. They find that low density satellite accretion does
1465: not necessarily drive S\'ersic index above the critical value we
1466: find($n_{crit}\sim2$). Yet, they also find that satellite accretion
1467: leads to a simultaneous increase in $B/T$.
1468:
1469: In Fig.~\ref{fig:btn}, we therefore plot the bulge-to-total ratio,
1470: $B/T$, and the ratio of the bulge half-light radius to the scale
1471: length of the disk, $r_e/h$, against $n_b$. There is a tight
1472: correlation for classical bulges. However, pseudobulges do not follow
1473: this correlation. In fact, neither $B/T$ nor $r_e/h$ correlate with
1474: $n_b$ in pseudobulges at all in the range of parameters shown,
1475: spanning an order of magnitude in $B/T$. The absence of correlation
1476: between $n_b$ and $B/T$ in pseudobulges seems to be pointing to a
1477: non-merger driven formation scenario for pseudobulges. Yet, these
1478: results are suggestive at best. There may be some underlying
1479: correlation that is destroyed by other factors (e.g.~gas fraction or
1480: collision parameters). More work is needed from both simulations and
1481: observations. That we do not see correlation of $n_b$ and $B/T$ for
1482: low-S\'ersic index bulges (as found in \citealp{eliche2006}) may be
1483: indicating that the classical bulges we observe today are the products
1484: of multiple mergers, and possibly at higher redshifts there is a
1485: population of low-S\'ersic index classical bulges. Conversely it is
1486: entirely possible that a population of small classical bulges exists,
1487: yet they are embedded within pseudobulges. In this case the mass of a
1488: bulge, and hence the $B/T$ within a specific galaxy would be coming
1489: from multiple mechanisms.
1490:
1491: If pseudobulges are built by secular evolution, the simplest mechanism
1492: controlling the S\'ersic index in bulges is that $n_b$ grows with time
1493: as the bulge-to-total ratio increases. However, as discussed above,
1494: it appears that there is not a strong connection between $B/T$ and
1495: S\'ersic index. This would imply that S\'ersic index in pseudobulges
1496: is not a time-dependent quantity. We wish to emphasize, though, that
1497: the error in the measurement of $n_b$ is large, and might be masking
1498: an underlying weak correlation. Also, by focusing on intermediate-type
1499: galaxies, where both pseudobulges and classical bulges occur, we miss
1500: very low $B/T$ systems. Expanding a sample to later types might reveal
1501: a weak correlation \citep{graham2001}. Since $r_e$ correlates tightly
1502: with $h$ for pseudobulges, it is no surprise that $r_e/h$ does not
1503: correlate with $n_b$ in pseudobulges. The linear coupling of $r_e$ and
1504: $h$ is well established in late type galaxies \citep{courteau1996}.
1505:
1506: It may be that the S\'ersic index of pseudobulges is merely another
1507: manifestation of the dynamical state of the system. Stars in bulges
1508: with larger amounts of random motion often take on radial orbits, thus
1509: climbing higher out of the potential well. Thus there is more light at
1510: large radius, increasing $n_b$. However, stars in orbits with higher
1511: amounts of angular momentum would be less likely to take on radial
1512: orbits and thus bulge light would contribute less at large radius;
1513: driving $n_b$ down. The observation that the distribution of S\'ersic
1514: indices in bulges of galaxies from E to Sc is bimodal then strengthens
1515: the claim that what we are calling pseudobulges are not merely the
1516: low-mass counterparts of the same phenomena that form classical bulges
1517: and elliptical galaxies. This description fits well with the theory
1518: that secular evolution forms pseudobulges, and mergers, whether by a
1519: single event or succession of events, form classical bulges. The
1520: higher angular momentum (and thus low S\'ersic index) systems have not
1521: had major mergers and thus have not experienced the violent processes
1522: that lower the ratio of rotational velocity to velocity
1523: dispersion. What is left unknown is why pseudobulges are not
1524: exponential, and also what keeps them from having larger S\'ersic
1525: indices.
1526:
1527: We conclude by returning to the results of Fig.~\ref{fig:bthist}, and
1528: the implications of the range of $B/T$ for pseudobulges. It is now
1529: well known that the presence of many low-$B/T$ systems presents a
1530: problem for current $\Lambda$CDM galaxy formation theories
1531: \citep{donghia2004}. In our sample we find no classical bulge galaxies
1532: with $B/T<0.1$. Recent studies which compare merger histories in
1533: $\Lambda$CDM simulations to the observed frequency of bulgeless
1534: galaxies suggest that either there are too many mergers in the
1535: simulations, or that disks must be much more robust to the merging
1536: process than previously thought
1537: \citep{stewart2007,koda2007}. Pseudobulges span a range of $B/T$ from
1538: 0.35 to zero. If pseudobulges form through internal-disk processes
1539: then a galaxy with a pseudobulge can be thought of as a pure disk
1540: galaxy. Thus current estimates of the number of low-$B/T$ systems
1541: could only be thought of as lower-limits; the existence of
1542: pseudobulges would make the problem of forming bulgeless systems even
1543: more pressing.
1544:
1545:
1546: \acknowledgments
1547:
1548: We would like to thank Prof.\ John Kormendy \& Dr.\ Mark Cornell for
1549: countless discussions on this work. Also, DBF would like to thank
1550: Prof.\ Alex Filippenko and University of California at Berkeley for
1551: providing him with a place to do much of this research.
1552:
1553: DBF acknowledges support by the National Science Foundation under
1554: grant AST 06-07490. This work is based in part on observations made
1555: with the Spitzer Space Telescope, operated by the Jet Propulsion
1556: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with
1557: NASA. Support for this work was provided by NASA through an award
1558: issued by JPL/Caltech.
1559:
1560: This paper makes use of data obtained from the Isaac Newton Group
1561: Archive which is maintained as part of the CASU Astronomical Data
1562: Centre at the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge. This research has
1563: made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is
1564: operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
1565: Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
1566: Administration. This research has made use of the NASA/ IPAC Infrared
1567: Science Archive, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
1568: California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National
1569: Aeronautics and Space Administration. Some of the data presented in
1570: this paper were obtained from the Multi-mission Archive at the Space
1571: Telescope Science Institute (MAST). STScI is operated by the
1572: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under
1573: NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for MAST for non-HST data is
1574: provided by the NASA Office of Space Science via grant NAG5-7584 and
1575: by other grants and contracts. Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has
1576: been provided by the Alfred P.\ Sloan Foundation, the Participating
1577: Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S.\ Department of
1578: Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
1579: Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher
1580: Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is {\tt
1581: http://www.sdss.org/}. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical
1582: Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The
1583: Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History,
1584: Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, Cambridge
1585: University, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago,
1586: Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the
1587: Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint
1588: Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle
1589: Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese
1590: Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
1591: Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute
1592: for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State
1593: University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth,
1594: Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the
1595: University of Washington. This publication makes use of data products
1596: from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the
1597: University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis
1598: Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
1599: Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
1600: Foundation.
1601:
1602: %\bibliography{pseudosers} \bibliographystyle{apj}
1603:
1604: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1605:
1606: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Adelman-McCarthy} et~al.}{{Adelman-McCarthy}
1607: et~al.}{2006}]{sdssdr4}
1608: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K., et~al. 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
1609:
1610: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Aguerri}, {Balcells}, \&
1611: {Peletier}}{{Aguerri} et~al.}{2001}]{aguerri2001}
1612: {Aguerri}, J.~A.~L., {Balcells}, M., \& {Peletier}, R.~F. 2001, \aap, 367, 428
1613:
1614: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Allen} et~al.}{{Allen}
1615: et~al.}{2006}]{allen2006}
1616: {Allen}, P.~D., {Driver}, S.~P., {Graham}, A.~W., {Cameron}, E., {Liske}, J.,
1617: \& {de Propris}, R. 2006, \mnras, 371, 2
1618:
1619: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Andredakis}}{{Andredakis}}{1998}]{andredak19%
1620: 98}
1621: {Andredakis}, Y.~C. 1998, \mnras, 295, 725
1622:
1623: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Andredakis}, {Peletier}, \&
1624: {Balcells}}{{Andredakis} et~al.}{1995}]{andredak95}
1625: {Andredakis}, Y.~C., {Peletier}, R.~F., \& {Balcells}, M. 1995, \mnras, 275,
1626: 874
1627:
1628: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Andredakis} \& {Sanders}}{{Andredakis} \&
1629: {Sanders}}{1994}]{andredak94}
1630: {Andredakis}, Y.~C., \& {Sanders}, R.~H. 1994, \mnras, 267, 283
1631:
1632: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Balcells} et~al.}{{Balcells}
1633: et~al.}{2003}]{balcells2003}
1634: {Balcells}, M., {Graham}, A.~W., {Dom{\'{\i}}nguez-Palmero}, L., \&
1635: {Peletier}, R.~F. 2003, \apjl, 582, L79
1636:
1637: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bender}, {Burstein}, \& {Faber}}{{Bender}
1638: et~al.}{1992}]{bbf92}
1639: {Bender}, R., {Burstein}, D., \& {Faber}, S.~M. 1992, \apj, 399, 462
1640:
1641: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bender} \& {Moellenhoff}}{{Bender} \&
1642: {Moellenhoff}}{1987}]{bender1987}
1643: {Bender}, R., \& {Moellenhoff}, C. 1987, \aap, 177, 71
1644:
1645: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{B{\"o}ker} et~al.}{{B{\"o}ker}
1646: et~al.}{2002}]{boeker2002}
1647: {B{\"o}ker}, T., {Laine}, S., {van der Marel}, R.~P., {Sarzi}, M., {Rix},
1648: H.-W., {Ho}, L.~C., \& {Shields}, J.~C. 2002, \aj, 123, 1389
1649:
1650: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Caon}, {Capaccioli}, \& {D'Onofrio}}{{Caon}
1651: et~al.}{1994}]{caon94}
1652: {Caon}, N., {Capaccioli}, M., \& {D'Onofrio}, M. 1994, \aaps, 106, 199
1653:
1654: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Carollo}}{{Carollo}}{1999}]{carollo1999}
1655: {Carollo}, C.~M. 1999, \apj, 523, 566
1656:
1657: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Carollo} et~al.}{{Carollo}
1658: et~al.}{1997}]{carollo97}
1659: {Carollo}, C.~M., {Stiavelli}, M., {de Zeeuw}, P.~T., \& {Mack}, J. 1997, \aj,
1660: 114, 2366
1661:
1662: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Carollo} et~al.}{{Carollo}
1663: et~al.}{2002}]{carollo2002}
1664: {Carollo}, C.~M., {Stiavelli}, M., {Seigar}, M., {de Zeeuw}, P.~T., \&
1665: {Dejonghe}, H. 2002, \aj, 123, 159
1666:
1667: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cheng} et~al.}{{Cheng}
1668: et~al.}{1997}]{cheng1997}
1669: {Cheng}, K.~P., {Collins}, N., {Angione}, R., {Talbert}, F., {Hintzen}, P.,
1670: {Smith}, E.~P., {Stecher}, T., \& {The UIT Team}, ed. 1997, {Uv/visible Sky
1671: Gallery on CDROM}
1672:
1673: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Courteau}, {de Jong}, \&
1674: {Broeils}}{{Courteau} et~al.}{1996}]{courteau1996}
1675: {Courteau}, S., {de Jong}, R.~S., \& {Broeils}, A.~H. 1996, \apjl, 457, L73
1676:
1677: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{de Jong}}{{de Jong}}{1996}]{dejong1996data}
1678: {de Jong}, R.~S. 1996, Journal of Astronomical Data, 2, 1
1679:
1680: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{de Jong} et~al.}{{de Jong}
1681: et~al.}{2004}]{dejong2004}
1682: {de Jong}, R.~S., {Simard}, L., {Davies}, R.~L., {Saglia}, R.~P., {Burstein},
1683: D., {Colless}, M., {McMahan}, R., \& {Wegner}, G. 2004, \mnras, 355, 1155
1684:
1685: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{de Vaucouleurs} et~al.}{{de Vaucouleurs}
1686: et~al.}{1991}]{rc3}
1687: {de Vaucouleurs}, G., {de Vaucouleurs}, A., {Corwin}, H.~G., Jr., {Buta},
1688: R.~J., {Paturel}, G., \& {Fouque}, P. 1991, {Third Reference Catalogue of
1689: Bright Galaxies} (Volume 1-3, XII, 2069 pp.~7 figs..~ Springer-Verlag Berlin
1690: Heidelberg New York)
1691:
1692: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Debattista} et~al.}{{Debattista}
1693: et~al.}{2004}]{debattista2004}
1694: {Debattista}, V.~P., {Carollo}, C.~M., {Mayer}, L., \& {Moore}, B. 2004,
1695: \apjl, 604, L93
1696:
1697: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Djorgovski} \& {Davis}}{{Djorgovski} \&
1698: {Davis}}{1987}]{djorgovski1987}
1699: {Djorgovski}, S., \& {Davis}, M. 1987, \apj, 313, 59
1700:
1701: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{D'Onghia} \& {Burkert}}{{D'Onghia} \&
1702: {Burkert}}{2004}]{donghia2004}
1703: {D'Onghia}, E., \& {Burkert}, A. 2004, \apjl, 612, L13
1704:
1705: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dressler}}{{Dressler}}{1980}]{dressler1980}
1706: {Dressler}, A. 1980, \apj, 236, 351
1707:
1708: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dressler} et~al.}{{Dressler}
1709: et~al.}{1987}]{dressler1987}
1710: {Dressler}, A., {Lynden-Bell}, D., {Burstein}, D., {Davies}, R.~L., {Faber},
1711: S.~M., {Terlevich}, R., \& {Wegner}, G. 1987, \apj, 313, 42
1712:
1713: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Drory} \& {Fisher}}{{Drory} \&
1714: {Fisher}}{2007}]{droryfisher2007}
1715: {Drory}, N., \& {Fisher}, D.~B. 2007, \apj, 664, 640
1716:
1717: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Eliche-Moral} et~al.}{{Eliche-Moral}
1718: et~al.}{2006}]{eliche2006}
1719: {Eliche-Moral}, M.~C., {Balcells}, M., {Aguerri}, J.~A.~L., \&
1720: {Gonz{\'a}lez-Garc{\'{\i}}a}, A.~C. 2006, \aap, 457, 91
1721:
1722: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Erwin}, {Beckman}, \& {Vega-Beltran}}{{Erwin}
1723: et~al.}{2004}]{erwin2004composites}
1724: {Erwin}, P., {Beckman}, J.~E., \& {Vega-Beltran}, J.-C. 2004, in Astrophysics
1725: and Space Science Library, Vol. 319, Astrophysics and Space Science Library,
1726: ed. D.~L. {Block}, I.~{Puerari}, K.~C. {Freeman}, R.~{Groess}, \& E.~K.
1727: {Block}, 775
1728:
1729: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Erwin} \& {Sparke}}{{Erwin} \&
1730: {Sparke}}{2002}]{erwin2002}
1731: {Erwin}, P., \& {Sparke}, L.~S. 2002, \aj, 124, 65
1732:
1733: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Erwin} \& {Sparke}}{{Erwin} \&
1734: {Sparke}}{2003}]{erwin2003}
1735: {Erwin}, P., \& {Sparke}, L.~S. 2003, \apjs, 146, 299
1736:
1737: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Faber} et~al.}{{Faber}
1738: et~al.}{1989}]{faber1989}
1739: {Faber}, S.~M., {Wegner}, G., {Burstein}, D., {Davies}, R.~L., {Dressler}, A.,
1740: {Lynden-Bell}, D., \& {Terlevich}, R.~J. 1989, \apjs, 69, 763
1741:
1742: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Falc{\'o}n-Barroso}, {Peletier}, \&
1743: {Balcells}}{{Falc{\'o}n-Barroso} et~al.}{2002}]{falcon2002}
1744: {Falc{\'o}n-Barroso}, J., {Peletier}, R.~F., \& {Balcells}, M. 2002, \mnras,
1745: 335, 741
1746:
1747: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fathi} \& {Peletier}}{{Fathi} \&
1748: {Peletier}}{2003}]{fathi2003}
1749: {Fathi}, K., \& {Peletier}, R.~F. 2003, \aap, 407, 61
1750:
1751: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fisher}}{{Fisher}}{2006}]{fisher2006}
1752: {Fisher}, D.~B. 2006, \apjl, 642, L17
1753:
1754: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Frei} et~al.}{{Frei} et~al.}{1996}]{frei1996}
1755: {Frei}, Z., {Guhathakurta}, P., {Gunn}, J.~E., \& {Tyson}, J.~A. 1996, \aj,
1756: 111, 174
1757:
1758: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Friedli}}{{Friedli}}{1999}]{friedli1999}
1759: {Friedli}, D. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series,
1760: Vol. 187, The Evolution of Galaxies on Cosmological Timescales, ed. J.~E.
1761: {Beckman} \& T.~J. {Mahoney}, 88
1762:
1763: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Graham} \& {Colless}}{{Graham} \&
1764: {Colless}}{1997}]{graham1997}
1765: {Graham}, A., \& {Colless}, M. 1997, \mnras, 287, 221
1766:
1767: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Graham} et~al.}{{Graham}
1768: et~al.}{1996}]{graham96}
1769: {Graham}, A., {Lauer}, T.~R., {Colless}, M., \& {Postman}, M. 1996, \apj, 465,
1770: 534
1771:
1772: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Graham}}{{Graham}}{2001}]{graham2001}
1773: {Graham}, A.~W. 2001, \aj, 121, 820
1774:
1775: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Graham} \& {Driver}}{{Graham} \&
1776: {Driver}}{2005}]{graham2005}
1777: {Graham}, A.~W., \& {Driver}, S.~P. 2005, Publications of the Astronomical
1778: Society of Australia, 22, 118
1779:
1780: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Helfer} et~al.}{{Helfer}
1781: et~al.}{2003}]{helfer2003}
1782: {Helfer}, T.~T., {Thornley}, M.~D., {Regan}, M.~W., {Wong}, T., {Sheth}, K.,
1783: {Vogel}, S.~N., {Blitz}, L., \& {Bock}, D.~C.-J. 2003, \apjs, 145, 259
1784:
1785: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hohl}}{{Hohl}}{1975}]{hohl1975}
1786: {Hohl}, F. 1975, in IAU Symp. 69: Dynamics of the Solar Systems, ed. A.~V.
1787: {Oppenheim} \& R.~W. {Schafer}, 349
1788:
1789: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Holtzman} et~al.}{{Holtzman}
1790: et~al.}{1995}]{holtzman1995}
1791: {Holtzman}, J.~A., {Burrows}, C.~J., {Casertano}, S., {Hester}, J.~J.,
1792: {Trauger}, J.~T., {Watson}, A.~M., \& {Worthey}, G. 1995, \pasp, 107, 1065
1793:
1794: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Jogee}, {Scoville}, \& {Kenney}}{{Jogee}
1795: et~al.}{2005}]{jogee2005}
1796: {Jogee}, S., {Scoville}, N., \& {Kenney}, J.~D.~P. 2005, \apj, 630, 837
1797:
1798: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kannappan}, {Jansen}, \&
1799: {Barton}}{{Kannappan} et~al.}{2004}]{kannapan2004}
1800: {Kannappan}, S.~J., {Jansen}, R.~A., \& {Barton}, E.~J. 2004, \aj, 127, 1371
1801:
1802: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kennicutt} et~al.}{{Kennicutt}
1803: et~al.}{2003}]{kennicutt2003}
1804: {Kennicutt}, R.~C., Jr., et~al. 2003, \pasp, 115, 928
1805:
1806: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kent}}{{Kent}}{1985}]{kent1985}
1807: {Kent}, S.~M. 1985, \apjs, 59, 115
1808:
1809: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Khosroshahi}, {Wadadekar}, \&
1810: {Kembhavi}}{{Khosroshahi} et~al.}{2000}]{photplane}
1811: {Khosroshahi}, H.~G., {Wadadekar}, Y., \& {Kembhavi}, A. 2000, \apj, 533, 162
1812:
1813: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Knapen} et~al.}{{Knapen}
1814: et~al.}{2004}]{knapen2004}
1815: {Knapen}, J.~H., {Stedman}, S., {Bramich}, D.~M., {Folkes}, S.~L., \&
1816: {Bradley}, T.~R. 2004, \aap, 426, 1135
1817:
1818: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Koda}, {Milosavljevic}, \& {Shapiro}}{{Koda}
1819: et~al.}{2007}]{koda2007}
1820: {Koda}, J., {Milosavljevic}, M., \& {Shapiro}, P.~R. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 711
1821:
1822: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kormendy}}{{Kormendy}}{1977}]{k77}
1823: {Kormendy}, J. 1977, \apj, 218, 333
1824:
1825: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kormendy}}{{Kormendy}}{1982}]{k82}
1826: {Kormendy}, J. 1982, in Saas-Fee Advanced Course 12: Morphology and Dynamics of
1827: GalaxiesSaas-Fee Vol. 12: Morphology and Dynamics of Galaxies, 113
1828:
1829: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kormendy}}{{Kormendy}}{1993}]{k93}
1830: {Kormendy}, J. 1993, in IAU Symp. 153: Galactic Bulges, 209
1831:
1832: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kormendy}}{{Kormendy}}{2007}]{jk-private}
1833: {Kormendy}, J. 2007
1834:
1835: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kormendy} \& {Kennicutt}}{{Kormendy} \&
1836: {Kennicutt}}{2004}]{kk04}
1837: {Kormendy}, J., \& {Kennicutt}, R.~C. 2004, \araa, 42, 603
1838:
1839: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kormendy} et~al.}{{Kormendy}
1840: et~al.}{2006}]{kormendy2006virgo}
1841: {Kormendy}, J.~K., {Fisher}, D.~B., {Cornell}, M.~E., \& {Bender}, R. 2006, In
1842: Preperation
1843:
1844: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kuchinski} et~al.}{{Kuchinski}
1845: et~al.}{2000}]{kuchinski2000}
1846: {Kuchinski}, L.~E., et~al. 2000, \apjs, 131, 441
1847:
1848: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Larsen} \& {Richtler}}{{Larsen} \&
1849: {Richtler}}{1999}]{larsen1999}
1850: {Larsen}, S.~S., \& {Richtler}, T. 1999, \aap, 345, 59
1851:
1852: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lauer} et~al.}{{Lauer}
1853: et~al.}{1995}]{lauer95}
1854: {Lauer}, T.~R., et~al. 1995, \aj, 110, 2622
1855:
1856: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lauer} et~al.}{{Lauer}
1857: et~al.}{2005}]{Laueretal05}
1858: {Lauer}, T.~R., et~al. 2005, \aj, 129, 2138
1859:
1860: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{MacArthur} et~al.}{{MacArthur}
1861: et~al.}{2004}]{macarthur2004}
1862: {MacArthur}, L.~A., {Courteau}, S., {Bell}, E., \& {Holtzman}, J.~A. 2004,
1863: \apjs, 152, 175
1864:
1865: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{MacArthur}, {Courteau}, \&
1866: {Holtzman}}{{MacArthur} et~al.}{2003}]{macarthur2003}
1867: {MacArthur}, L.~A., {Courteau}, S., \& {Holtzman}, J.~A. 2003, \apj, 582, 689
1868:
1869: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mastropietro} et~al.}{{Mastropietro}
1870: et~al.}{2005}]{mastropietro2005}
1871: {Mastropietro}, C., {Moore}, B., {Mayer}, L., {Debattista}, V.~P.,
1872: {Piffaretti}, R., \& {Stadel}, J. 2005, \mnras, 364, 607
1873:
1874: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Moellenhoff}, {Matthias}, \&
1875: {Gerhard}}{{Moellenhoff} et~al.}{1995}]{mollenhoff1995-n4736}
1876: {Moellenhoff}, C., {Matthias}, M., \& {Gerhard}, O.~E. 1995, \aap, 301, 359
1877:
1878: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{M{\"o}llenhoff} \& {Heidt}}{{M{\"o}llenhoff}
1879: \& {Heidt}}{2001}]{mollenhoff2001}
1880: {M{\"o}llenhoff}, C., \& {Heidt}, J. 2001, \aap, 368, 16
1881:
1882: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Moore} et~al.}{{Moore}
1883: et~al.}{1996}]{MKLDO96}
1884: {Moore}, B., {Katz}, N., {Lake}, G., {Dressler}, A., \& {Oemler}, A., Jr.
1885: 1996, \nat, 379, 613
1886:
1887: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Noguchi}}{{Noguchi}}{1999}]{noguchi99}
1888: {Noguchi}, M. 1999, \apj, 514, 77
1889:
1890: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Peeples} \& {Martini}}{{Peeples} \&
1891: {Martini}}{2006}]{peeples2006}
1892: {Peeples}, M.~S., \& {Martini}, P. 2006, \apj, 652, 1097
1893:
1894: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Peletier} \& {Balcells}}{{Peletier} \&
1895: {Balcells}}{1996}]{peletier1996}
1896: {Peletier}, R.~F., \& {Balcells}, M. 1996, \aj, 111, 2238
1897:
1898: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pfenniger} \& {Friedli}}{{Pfenniger} \&
1899: {Friedli}}{1991}]{pfenniger1991}
1900: {Pfenniger}, D., \& {Friedli}, D. 1991, \aap, 252, 75
1901:
1902: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pfenniger} \& {Norman}}{{Pfenniger} \&
1903: {Norman}}{1990}]{pfenniger1990}
1904: {Pfenniger}, D., \& {Norman}, C. 1990, \apj, 363, 391
1905:
1906: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Regan} et~al.}{{Regan}
1907: et~al.}{2001}]{regan2001bima}
1908: {Regan}, M.~W., {Thornley}, M.~D., {Helfer}, T.~T., {Sheth}, K., {Wong}, T.,
1909: {Vogel}, S.~N., {Blitz}, L., \& {Bock}, D.~C.-J. 2001, \apj, 561, 218
1910:
1911: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Saglia} et~al.}{{Saglia}
1912: et~al.}{1997}]{saglia1997}
1913: {Saglia}, R.~P., {Bertschinger}, E., {Baggley}, G., {Burstein}, D., {Colless},
1914: M., {Davies}, R.~L., {McMahan}, R.~K., Jr., \& {Wegner}, G. 1997, \apjs,
1915: 109, 79
1916:
1917: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sandage}}{{Sandage}}{1961}]{hubbleatlas}
1918: {Sandage}, A. 1961, {The Hubble atlas of galaxies} (Washington: Carnegie
1919: Institution, 1961)
1920:
1921: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sandage} \& {Bedke}}{{Sandage} \&
1922: {Bedke}}{1994}]{carnegieatlas}
1923: {Sandage}, A., \& {Bedke}, J. 1994, {The Carnegie atlas of galaxies}
1924: (Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington with The Flintridge
1925: Foundation, |c1994)
1926:
1927: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Scarlata} et~al.}{{Scarlata}
1928: et~al.}{2004}]{scarlata2004}
1929: {Scarlata}, C., et~al. 2004, \aj, 128, 1124
1930:
1931: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
1932: {Davis}}{{Schlegel} et~al.}{1998}]{schlegel}
1933: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1934:
1935: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Scorza} \& {Bender}}{{Scorza} \&
1936: {Bender}}{1995}]{SB95}
1937: {Scorza}, C., \& {Bender}, R. 1995, \aap, 293, 20
1938:
1939: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sersic}}{{Sersic}}{1968}]{sersic1968}
1940: {Sersic}, J.~L. 1968, {Atlas de galaxias australes} (Cordoba, Argentina:
1941: Observatorio Astronomico, 1968)
1942:
1943: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sheth} et~al.}{{Sheth}
1944: et~al.}{2005}]{sheth2005}
1945: {Sheth}, K., {Vogel}, S.~N., {Regan}, M.~W., {Thornley}, M.~D., \& {Teuben},
1946: P.~J. 2005, \apj, 632, 217
1947:
1948: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Simkin}, {Su}, \& {Schwarz}}{{Simkin}
1949: et~al.}{1980}]{simkin1980}
1950: {Simkin}, S.~M., {Su}, H.~J., \& {Schwarz}, M.~P. 1980, \apj, 237, 404
1951:
1952: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sirianni} et~al.}{{Sirianni}
1953: et~al.}{2005}]{sirianni2005}
1954: {Sirianni}, M., et~al. 2005, \pasp, 117, 1049
1955:
1956: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Skrutskie} et~al.}{{Skrutskie}
1957: et~al.}{2006}]{2mass}
1958: {Skrutskie}, M.~F., et~al. 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
1959:
1960: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Smith} et~al.}{{Smith}
1961: et~al.}{2002}]{smithetal2002}
1962: {Smith}, J.~A., et~al. 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
1963:
1964: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Stewart} et~al.}{{Stewart}
1965: et~al.}{2007}]{stewart2007}
1966: {Stewart}, K.~R., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Wechsler}, R.~H., {Maller}, A.~H., \&
1967: {Zentner}, A.~R. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 711
1968:
1969: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Thomas} \& {Davies}}{{Thomas} \&
1970: {Davies}}{2006}]{thomas2006}
1971: {Thomas}, D., \& {Davies}, R.~L. 2006, \mnras, 366, 510
1972:
1973: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tully} \& {Fisher}}{{Tully} \&
1974: {Fisher}}{1988}]{tully1998}
1975: {Tully}, R.~B., \& {Fisher}, J.~R. 1988, {Catalog of Nearby Galaxies} (Catalog
1976: of Nearby Galaxies, by R.~Brent Tully and J.~Richard Fisher, pp.~224.~ISBN
1977: 0521352991.~Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, April 1988.)
1978:
1979: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van Albada}}{{van
1980: Albada}}{1982}]{vanalbada82}
1981: {van Albada}, T.~S. 1982, \mnras, 201, 939
1982:
1983: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van den Bergh}}{{van den
1984: Bergh}}{1976}]{vdB76}
1985: {van den Bergh}, S. 1976, \apj, 206, 883
1986:
1987: \end{thebibliography}
1988:
1989: \end{document}
1990: \clearpage
1991: \newpage
1992:
1993: \begin{deluxetable}{clcccl}
1994: \rotate
1995: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1996: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{Data Sources}
1997: \tablehead{\colhead{No.} & \colhead{Instrument} &
1998: \colhead{Filter} & \colhead{Scale} & \colhead{Field Of View} &
1999: \colhead{Reference\tablenotemark{(a)}} \\
2000: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(arcsec/pixel)} &
2001: \colhead{(arcmin)} & \colhead{}
2002: }
2003: \startdata
2004: 1 & CFHT HRCam & V & 0.11 & 1.9 $\times$ 1.2 & \cite{jk-private} \\
2005: 2 & CTIO 1.5m & V & 0.434 & 14.8 $\times$ 14.8 & \cite{kennicutt2003} (NED) \\
2006: 3 & CTIO 4.0 Mosaic 2 & V & 0.27 & 9.3 $\times$ 9.3 & \cite{kennicutt2003} (NED) \\
2007: 4 & Danish 1.54 DFOSC & V & 0.4 & 13.7 $\times$ 13.7 & \cite{larsen1999} (NED) \\
2008: 5 & HST ACS/WFC & F547M,F555W,F606W & 0.049 & 3.5 $\times$ 3.4 & MAST \\
2009: 6 & HST WFPC1 (PC) & F555W & 0.043 & 1.1$\times$1.1 & \cite{lauer95} \\
2010: 7 & HST WFPC2 (PC) & F547M,F555W,F606W & 0.0455 & 0.6 $\times$ 0.6 & MAST, \cite{Laueretal05}\\
2011: 8 & HST WFPC2 (WF) & F547M,F555W,F606W & 0.0996 & 1.3 $\times$ 1.3 & MAST \\
2012: 9 & ING JKT AGBX & V & 0.3 & 7.0 $\times$ 1.9 & \cite{dejong1996data} (NED) \\
2013: 10 & ING JKT SITe2 & V & 0.33 & 11.2 $\times$ 11.2 & ING, \cite{knapen2004} (NED) \\
2014: 11 & ING INT WFC & V & 0.33 & 34 $\times$ 34 & ING \\
2015: 12 & KPNO 2.1m T2KA & V & 0.304 & 10.4 $\times$ 10.4 & \cite{kennicutt2003} (NED) \\
2016: 13 & KPNO 0.9m/TEK5 & V & 0.78 & 9.2 $\times$ 7.0 & \cite{kennicutt2003} (NED) \\
2017: 14 & LCO 2.5m & V & 0.26 & 8.8 $\times$ 8.8 & \cite{kuchinski2000} (NED) \\
2018: 15 & McDonald 0.8m PFC & V & 1.36 & 46.2 $\times$ 46.2 & New Observation \\
2019: 16 & MLO 40in & V & 0.985 & 13.0 $\times$ 13.0 & \cite{cheng1997} (NED) \\
2020: 17 & NOT ALFOSC & V & 0.189 & 6.5 $\times$ 6.5 & \cite{larsen1999} (NED) \\
2021: 18 & SDSS & g,r & 0.396 & 13.5 $\times$ 9.8 & \cite{sdssdr4} \\
2022: 19 & Palomar 1.5m WideField & V; g,r & 1.19 & 14.3 $\times$ 14.3 & \cite{kuchinski2000} (NED); \cite{frei1996} (NED) \\
2023: 20 & WHT Cass TEK1 & V & 0.241 & 4.1 $\times$ 4.1 & ING \\
2024: \enddata
2025: \tablenotetext{(a)}{Most commonly, the publication of the data is
2026: referenced. If it is found on NED this is noted. ``MAST'' refers to
2027: the {\em Multimission Archive at STScI}. ``ING'' refers to the
2028: Archive of Isaac Newton Group telescope data.}
2029:
2030: \end{deluxetable}
2031:
2032: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccccc}
2033: \rotate
2034: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2035: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{Sample Galaxy Properties}
2036: \tablehead{\colhead{Identifier} & \colhead{Hubble}\tablenotemark{(a)} &
2037: \colhead{Driving} & \colhead{$a_V$}\tablenotemark{(b)} & \colhead{V} &
2038: \colhead{$M_V$} &
2039: \colhead{distance}\tablenotemark{(c)} & \colhead{Data Sources}\tablenotemark{(d)} \\
2040: \colhead{} & \colhead{Type} & \colhead{Mechanism} & \colhead{(mags)} &
2041: \colhead{(mags)} & \colhead{(mags)} & \colhead{(Mpc)} & \colhead{}
2042: }
2043: \startdata
2044: NGC~613 & SBb(rs) & Bar & 0.06 & 10.28 & -21.31 & 20.13 & 8,15 \\
2045: NGC~628 & Sc(s) & - & 0.23 & 9.24 & -20.77 & 9.04 & 2,5,10,17 \\
2046: NGC~1022 & SBa(r) & Bar & 0.09 & 11.32 & -19.74 & 15.63 & 8,15 \\
2047: NGC~1300 & SBb(s) & Bar & 0.10 & 10.57 & -21.05 & 20.15 & 5,10,15 \\
2048: NGC~1313 & SBc(s) & Bar & 0.36 & 9.23 & -20.41 & 7.15 & 4,7,14 \\
2049: NGC~1325 & Sb(s) & - & 0.07 & 11.63 & -19.97 & 20.20 & 7,15 \\
2050: NGC~1353 & Sbc(r) & - & 0.11 & 11.22 & -20.32 & 19.31 & 7,15 \\
2051: NGC~1398 & SBab(r) & Bar & 0.05 & 9.64 & -21.47 & 16.26 & 7,8,15 \\
2052: NGC~1425 & Sb(r) & - & 0.04 & 10.95 & -20.50 & 19.11 & 8,15 \\
2053: NGC~1512 & SBb(rs) & Bar & 0.04 & 10.44 & -19.56 & 9.85 & 8,14,15 \\
2054: NGC~1566 & Sbc(s) & - & 0.03 & 9.69 & -20.75 & 12.08 & 2,7,14 \\
2055: NGC~2775 & Sa(r) & - & 0.14 & 10.22 & -21.35 & 19.23 & 7,15,18 \\
2056: NGC~2787 & SB0/a & Bar & 0.43 & 10.72 & -19.86 & 10.69 & 7,15 \\
2057: NGC~2835 & SBc(rs) & Bar & 0.33 & 10.42 & -19.25 & 7.35 & 4,7 \\
2058: NGC~2841 & Sb & - & 0.05 & 9.31 & -21.12 & 11.91 & 1,6,10,12,14,18,19 \\
2059: NGC~2880 & SB0 & Bar & 0.11 & 11.71 & -20.10 & 21.88 & 8,15,18 \\
2060: NGC~2903 & Sc(s) & Bar & 0.10 & 8.98 & -20.14 & 6.35 & 8,10,15,18,19 \\
2061: NGC~2950 & RSB0 & Bar & 0.06 & 11.04 & -20.80 & 22.80 & 7,10,15,18 \\
2062: NGC~3031 & Sb(r) & - & 0.27 & 6.77 & -21.45 & 3.91 & 5,6,14,16,18 \\
2063: NGC~3115 & S0 & - & 0.16 & 8.58 & -21.51 & 9.68 & 1,6,14,15 \\
2064: NGC~3166 & Sa(s) & Oval & 0.10 & 10.23 & -20.93 & 16.22 & 7,15,18 \\
2065: NGC~3169 & Sb(r) & - & 0.10 & 10.46 & -20.69 & 16.22 & 7,8,15,18 \\
2066: NGC~3185 & SBa(s) & Bar & 0.09 & 12.08 & -19.36 & 18.56 & 8,10,15,18 \\
2067: NGC~3198 & Sc(s) & - & 0.04 & 10.37 & -19.50 & 9.24 & 8,12,18,19 \\
2068: NGC~3245 & S0 & - & 0.08 & 11.24 & -20.34 & 19.89 & 8,15,18 \\
2069: NGC~3259 & Sbc(r) & - & 0.05 & 12.66 & -19.59 & 27.54 & 8,10,15,18 \\
2070: NGC~3277 & Sa(r) & - & 0.09 & 11.68 & -19.90 & 19.89 & 7,10,15,18 \\
2071: NGC~3338 & Sbc(s) & - & 0.10 & 10.82 & -20.73 & 19.42 & 8,15,18 \\
2072: NGC~3351 & SBb(r) & Bar & 0.09 & 9.86 & -19.48 & 7.06 & 3,7,10,15,18,19\\
2073: NGC~3368 & Sab(s) & Oval & 0.08 & 9.13 & -21.61 & 13.53 & 7,8,10,15,18 \\
2074: NGC~3423 & Sc(s) & - & 0.10 & 10.68 & -19.80 & 11.95 & 7,18 \\
2075: NGC~3521 & Sbc(s) & - & 0.19 & 9.31 & -21.19 & 11.48 & 3,7,15 \\
2076: NGC~3593 & Sa pec & - & 0.07 & 10.67 & -18.57 & 6.83 & 7,15,18 \\
2077: NGC~3627 & Sb(s) & Bar & 0.11 & 8.95 & -20.33 & 6.83 & 7,8,12,15,18 \\
2078: NGC~3642 & Sb(r) & - & 0.04 & 10.79 & -21.45 & 27.54 & 7,18 \\
2079: NGC~3885 & Sa & - & 0.24 & 10.97 & -21.18 & 24.08 & 7,15 \\
2080: NGC~3898 & Sa & - & 0.07 & 10.71 & -20.85 & 19.88 & 7,10,15,18 \\
2081: NGC~3992 & SBb(rs) & Bar & 0.10 & 9.79 & -21.04 & 14.03 & 7,15,18 \\
2082: NGC~4030 & Sbc(r)* & - & 0.09 & 10.22 & -21.57 & 21.89 & 7,15,18 \\
2083: NGC~4062 & Sc(s) & - & 0.08 & 11.09 & -18.96 & 9.87 & 7,15,18 \\
2084: NGC~4152 & Sc(r) & - & 0.11 & 12.05 & -20.53 & 31.15 & 7,10 \\
2085: NGC~4203 & S0 & - & 0.04 & 10.91 & -20.03 & 15.14 & 7,18 \\
2086: NGC~4245 & SBa(s) & Bar & 0.07 & 11.25 & -18.80 & 9.87 & 7,15,18 \\
2087: NGC~4258 & Sb(s) & Oval & 0.05 & 8.39 & -20.97 & 7.28 & 5,7,15 \\
2088: NGC~4260 & SBa(s) & Bar & 0.08 & 11.84 & -20.71 & 31.25 & 7,18 \\
2089: NGC~4274 & Sa(sr) & Oval & 0.17 & 10.31 & -19.84 & 9.87 & 5,15,18 \\
2090: NGC~4314 & SBa(rs) pec & Bar & 0.08 & 10.63 & -19.42 & 9.87 & 7,10,15,18 \\
2091: NGC~4340 & RSB0 & Bar & 0.09 & 11.20 & -20.47 & 20.79 & 5,15,18 \\
2092: NGC~4371 & SB0(r) & Bar & 0.12 & 10.84 & -20.12 & 14.68 & 7,15,18 \\
2093: NGC~4379 & S0 & - & 0.08 & 11.78 & -19.06 & 14.19 & 7,18 \\
2094: NGC~4380 & Sab(s) & - & 0.08 & 11.70 & -19.97 & 20.79 & 7,15,18 \\
2095: NGC~4394 & SBb(sr) & Bar & 0.10 & 10.88 & -20.07 & 14.80 & 8,10,15,18 \\
2096: NGC~4448 & Sa & Bar & 0.08 & 10.95 & -19.10 & 9.87 & 7,15,18 \\
2097: NGC~4489 & S0** & - & 0.09 & 12.36 & -19.00 & 17.86 & KFCB\tablenotemark{(e)} \\
2098: NGC~4501 & Sbc(s) & - & 0.13 & 9.66 & -22.55 & 26.05 & 7,10,15,19 \\
2099: NGC~4536 & Sbc(s) & Oval & 0.06 & 10.84 & -21.24 & 25.30 & 7,12,15,18 \\
2100: NGC~4564 & S0** & - & 0.12 & 11.25 & -19.74 & 15.00 & KFCB\tablenotemark{(e)} \\
2101: NGC~4569 & Sab(s) & Bar & 0.15 & 9.50 & -22.24 & 20.79 & 7,10,15,18 \\
2102: NGC~4570 & S0 & - & 0.07 & 10.66 & -20.56 & 16.98 & KFCB\tablenotemark{(e)} \\
2103: NGC~4579 & Sab(s) & Bar & 0.14 & 9.90 & -21.83 & 20.79 & 7,12,15,18 \\
2104: NGC~4639 & SBb(r) & Bar & 0.09 & 11.40 & -20.27 & 20.79 & 7,8,15,18 \\
2105: NGC~4660 & S0** & - & 0.11 & 11.38 & -19.27 & 12.80 & KFCB\tablenotemark{(e)} \\
2106: NGC~4698 & Sa & Oval & 0.09 & 10.58 & -22.30 & 36.09 & 7,10,15,18 \\
2107: NGC~4725 & SBb(r) & Bar & 0.04 & 9.43 & -21.22 & 13.24 & 7,10,12,15 \\
2108: NGC~4736 & RSab(s) & Oval & 0.06 & 8.28 & -18.27 & 1.99 & 7,10,12,18,19 \\
2109: NGC~4772 & Sa(r)* & Bar & 0.09 & 11.22 & -19.51 & 13.43 & 7,18 \\
2110: NGC~4826 & Sab(s) & - & 0.14 & 8.57 & -20.94 & 7.48 & 6,7,10,13,15 \\
2111: NGC~4941 & Sab(s) & Oval & 0.12 & 11.29 & -17.41 & 5.22 & 7,15 \\
2112: NGC~5055 & Sbc(s) & - & 0.06 & 8.67 & -21.46 & 10.36 & 7,11,15,18,19 \\
2113: NGC~5194 & Sbc(s) & - & 0.12 & 8.38 & -20.94 & 6.94 & 7,12,10,15 \\
2114: NGC~5273 & S0/a & - & 0.03 & 11.45 & -19.68 & 16.52 & 7,10,15,18 \\
2115: NGC~5879 & Sb(s) & - & 0.04 & 11.31 & -19.38 & 13.45 & 7,15,18 \\
2116: NGC~5970 & SBbc(r) & Bar & 0.14 & 10.88 & -21.34 & 26.00 & 8,9,18 \\
2117: NGC~6744 & Sbc(r) & Bar & 0.14 & 7.84 & -21.93 & 8.43 & 4,7 \\
2118: NGC~6946 & Sc(s) & - & 1.13 & 8.57 & -21.33 & 5.67 & 7,10,12,15,17 \\
2119: NGC~7177 & Sab(r) & Bar & 0.24 & 11.30 & -20.10 & 17.08 & 7,8,9,15 \\
2120: NGC~7217 & Sb(r) & - & 0.29 & 10.07 & -21.23 & 15.92 & 8,15,20 \\
2121: NGC~7457 & S0 & - & 0.17 & 11.44 & -19.34 & 13.24 & 7,10,15 \\
2122: NGC~7743 & SBa & Bar & 0.23 & 11.34 & -20.47 & 20.70 & 7,10,15 \\
2123: \enddata
2124: \tablenotetext{(a)}{Hubble Types are taken from \cite{carnegieatlas}.}
2125: \tablenotetext{(b)}{Galactic extinction taken from \cite{schlegel}.}
2126: \tablenotetext{(c)}{Distances taken from \cite{tully1998}}
2127: \tablenotetext{(d)}{Refers to number in first column of Table 1.}
2128: \tablenotetext{(e)}{Profiles taken from \cite{kormendy2006virgo}}
2129: \end{deluxetable}
2130:
2131: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccccc}
2132: \rotate
2133: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2134: \tablewidth{0pt}
2135: \tablecaption{Bulge And Disk Parameters}
2136: \tablehead{\colhead{Identifier} & \colhead{Bulge} &
2137: \colhead{Bulge} & \colhead{RMS} & \colhead{$\mu_o(V)$}
2138: & \colhead{$r_e$} & \colhead{$n_b$} & \colhead{$\mu_D(V)$} &
2139: \colhead{$h$} & \colhead{$\langle \epsilon_b \rangle$}
2140: & \colhead{$\langle \epsilon_D \rangle$} & \colhead{$r_{b=d}$} \\
2141: \colhead{} & \colhead{Type} & \colhead{Morphology} & \colhead{} & \colhead{mag arcsec$^{-2}$} &\colhead{arcsec} & \colhead{} &\colhead{mag arcsec$^{-2}$} & \colhead{arcsec} &\colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} }
2142: \startdata
2143: NGC~613 & p & nB & 0.17 & 16.41$\pm$0.42 & 5.49 $\pm$ 2.97 & 1.23$\pm$0.40 & 19.47$\pm$0.25 & 33.47$\pm$1.75 & 0.39$\pm$0.20 & 0.48$\pm$0.04 & 8.73 \\
2144: NGC~628 & p & nS & 0.04 & 17.65$\pm$0.20 & 13.83 $\pm$ 3.64 & 1.45$\pm$0.19 & 20.29$\pm$0.09 & 80.83$\pm$4.35 & 0.09$\pm$0.07 & 0.13$\pm$0.01 & 14.29 \\
2145: NGC~1022 & p & nB & 0.07 & 14.12$\pm$0.54 & 1.06 $\pm$ 0.57 & 1.43$\pm$0.36 & 19.50$\pm$0.13 & 19.21$\pm$0.63 & 0.42$\pm$0.18 & 0.15$\pm$0.02 & 10.03 \\
2146: NGC~1300 & p & nS & 0.07 & 15.93$\pm$0.61 & 4.41 $\pm$ 2.57 & 1.61$\pm$0.39 & 20.59$\pm$0.11 & 58.27$\pm$3.03 & 0.20$\pm$0.10 & 0.51$\pm$0.04 & 9.03 \\
2147: NGC~1313 & p & nP & 0.11 & 17.83$\pm$0.55 & 2.57 $\pm$ 1.26 & 0.78$\pm$0.62 & 18.85$\pm$0.10 & 51.98$\pm$3.90 & 0.42$\pm$0.21 & 0.46$\pm$0.05 & 2.21 \\
2148: NGC~1325 & p & nS & 0.09 & 18.27$\pm$0.81 & 4.72 $\pm$ 4.12 & 1.50$\pm$0.79 & 20.24$\pm$0.11 & 36.61$\pm$1.27 & 0.36$\pm$0.19 & 0.61$\pm$0.01 & 3.02 \\
2149: NGC~1353 & p & nS & 0.13 & 15.02$\pm$0.47 & 2.60 $\pm$ 2.07 & 1.79$\pm$0.41 & 19.54$\pm$0.15 & 26.10$\pm$1.18 & 0.45$\pm$0.15 & 0.46$\pm$0.01 & 4.42 \\
2150: NGC~1398 & c & C & 0.13 & 13.04$\pm$0.69 & 23.22 $\pm$ 33.90 & 3.53$\pm$0.68 & 20.97$\pm$0.60 & 66.72$\pm$10.87 & 0.13$\pm$0.06 & 0.22$\pm$0.01 & 20 \\
2151: NGC~1425 & c & C & 0.12 & 13.27$\pm$1.36 & 8.50 $\pm$ 8.48 & 3.45$\pm$1.12 & 20.28$\pm$0.45 & 41.16$\pm$5.89 & 0.29$\pm$0.11 & 0.50$\pm$0.01 & 9.03 \\
2152: NGC~1512 & p & nR & 0.08 & 16.39$\pm$0.29 & 7.85 $\pm$ 3.23 & 1.56$\pm$0.28 & 20.24$\pm$0.16 & 46.09$\pm$2.49 & 0.10$\pm$0.08 & 0.45$\pm$0.01 & 8 \\
2153: NGC~1566 & p & nS & 0.07 & 16.61$\pm$1.64 & 8.90 $\pm$ 6.10 & 1.58$\pm$1.11 & 19.80$\pm$0.27 & 51.45$\pm$4.29 & 0.19$\pm$0.12 & 0.30$\pm$0.02 & 10.53 \\
2154: NGC~2775 & c & C & 0.07 & 13.62$\pm$0.51 & 32.11 $\pm$ 18.42 & 3.80$\pm$0.39 & 21.02$\pm$0.31 & 45.30$\pm$5.41 & 0.12$\pm$0.06 & 0.18$\pm$0.00 & 39.99 \\
2155: NGC~2787 & p & nB & 0.08 & 16.86$\pm$0.50 & 9.12 $\pm$ 5.55 & 1.24$\pm$0.33 & 19.62$\pm$0.18 & 25.89$\pm$1.11 & 0.32$\pm$0.16 & 0.37$\pm$0.02 & 14.44 \\
2156: NGC~2835 & p & nB & 0.08 & 19.91$\pm$0.75 & 9.84 $\pm$ 6.10 & 1.09$\pm$1.13 & 20.95$\pm$0.27 & 66.63$\pm$6.35 & 0.27$\pm$0.17 & 0.29$\pm$0.00 & 5.31 \\
2157: NGC~2841 & c & C & 0.08 & 13.67$\pm$0.71 & 11.19 $\pm$ 9.59 & 2.97$\pm$0.53 & 19.71$\pm$0.19 & 64.20$\pm$3.60 & 0.28$\pm$0.11 & 0.50$\pm$0.02 & 13 \\
2158: NGC~2880 & c & C & 0.04 & 13.42$\pm$0.32 & 13.03 $\pm$ 12.89 & 3.50$\pm$0.31 & 21.08$\pm$0.30 & 22.84$\pm$1.23 & 0.20$\pm$0.09 & 0.35$\pm$0.02 & 10 \\
2159: NGC~2903 & p & nP & 0.12 & 17.58$\pm$0.16 & 8.29 $\pm$ 0.82 & 0.42$\pm$0.13 & 20.29$\pm$0.30 & 84.47$\pm$6.25 & 0.41$\pm$0.17 & 0.50$\pm$0.01 & 12.03 \\
2160: NGC~2950 & p & nB & 0.08 & 14.04$\pm$0.62 & 4.67 $\pm$ 3.24 & 1.90$\pm$0.46 & 20.50$\pm$0.25 & 26.04$\pm$1.83 & 0.28$\pm$0.12 & 0.35$\pm$0.01 & 14.44 \\
2161: NGC~3031 & c & C & 0.06 & 12.34$\pm$0.43 & 75.05 $\pm$ 68.09 & 3.79$\pm$0.39 & 19.55$\pm$0.13 & 161.38$\pm$4.97 & 0.22$\pm$0.07 & 0.41$\pm$0.00 & 68.08 \\
2162: NGC~3115 & c & C & 0.09 & 10.76$\pm$0.41 & 30.98 $\pm$ 27.32 & 3.89$\pm$0.32 & 18.93$\pm$0.27 & 50.52$\pm$4.99 & 0.56$\pm$0.11 & 0.60$\pm$0.04 & 54.52 \\
2163: NGC~3166 & p & nS & 0.07 & 16.20$\pm$0.58 & 3.80 $\pm$ 1.16 & 0.56$\pm$0.27 & 18.28$\pm$0.20 & 13.66$\pm$1.26 & 0.41$\pm$0.23 & 0.27$\pm$0.03 & 7.22 \\
2164: NGC~3169 & p & nS & 0.09 & 15.89$\pm$0.34 & 8.35 $\pm$ 3.57 & 1.46$\pm$0.24 & 20.49$\pm$0.15 & 44.86$\pm$1.85 & 0.34$\pm$0.12 & 0.35$\pm$0.06 & 19.85 \\
2165: NGC~3185 & p & nR & 0.12 & 15.64$\pm$0.60 & 2.18 $\pm$ 2.34 & 1.69$\pm$0.51 & 19.97$\pm$0.18 & 18.57$\pm$1.05 & 0.26$\pm$0.12 & 0.39$\pm$0.01 & 3.74 \\
2166: NGC~3198 & p & nS & 0.03 & 19.18$\pm$0.94 & 33.36 $\pm$ 16.26 & 1.69$\pm$1.26 & 21.60$\pm$1.08 & 135.55$\pm$68.50 & 0.35$\pm$0.14 & 0.61$\pm$0.03 & 22.25 \\
2167: NGC~3245 & c & C & 0.07 & 12.54$\pm$0.43 & 14.35 $\pm$ 14.83 & 3.82$\pm$0.34 & 20.07$\pm$0.18 & 21.92$\pm$1.64 & 0.23$\pm$0.11 & 0.44$\pm$0.03 & 8 \\
2168: NGC~3259 & p & nS & 0.04 & 17.21$\pm$0.87 & 3.59 $\pm$ 2.34 & 1.75$\pm$0.84 & 19.86$\pm$0.18 & 13.12$\pm$0.59 & 0.28$\pm$0.19 & 0.36$\pm$0.02 & 2.62 \\
2169: NGC~3277 & c & C & 0.06 & 12.12$\pm$0.88 & 21.21 $\pm$ 12.84 & 4.67$\pm$0.65 & 23.50$\pm$1.16 & 57.77$\pm$14.99 & 0.13$\pm$0.05 & 0.25$\pm$0.01 & 38 \\
2170: NGC~3338 & p & nS & 0.1 & 17.79$\pm$1.87 & 7.86 $\pm$ 20.43 & 1.61$\pm$1.44 & 20.07$\pm$0.19 & 38.37$\pm$2.25 & 0.20$\pm$0.16 & 0.42$\pm$0.01 & 3 \\
2171: NGC~3351 & p & nR & 0.18 & 16.73$\pm$0.75 & 11.00 $\pm$ 10.34 & 1.51$\pm$0.77 & 20.61$\pm$0.40 & 57.21$\pm$7.12 & 0.18$\pm$0.11 & 0.19$\pm$0.03 & 13.84 \\
2172: NGC~3368 & p & nS & 0.1 & 15.57$\pm$0.80 & 13.95 $\pm$ 11.75 & 1.71$\pm$0.74 & 20.72$\pm$0.32 & 82.23$\pm$6.04 & 0.38$\pm$0.14 & 0.32$\pm$0.01 & 33.58 \\
2173: NGC~3423 & p & nS & 0.07 & 19.06$\pm$0.39 & 8.85 $\pm$ 4.70 & 1.37$\pm$0.47 & 20.50$\pm$0.13 & 45.44$\pm$3.06 & 0.15$\pm$0.14 & 0.17$\pm$0.01 & 4.37 \\
2174: NGC~3521 & c & C & 0.13 & 10.77$\pm$1.39 & 3.83 $\pm$ 2.99 & 3.20$\pm$0.92 & 18.80$\pm$0.41 & 44.05$\pm$9.56 & 0.34$\pm$0.11 & 0.46$\pm$0.01 & 7.83 \\
2175: NGC~3593 & p & nS & 0.14 & 16.69$\pm$0.69 & 16.22 $\pm$ 29.26 & 1.80$\pm$0.73 & 19.87$\pm$0.52 & 38.81$\pm$5.41 & 0.49$\pm$0.17 & 0.60$\pm$0.01 & 17.29 \\
2176: NGC~3627 & p & nS & 0.1 & 14.15$\pm$0.85 & 21.57 $\pm$ 24.97 & 2.90$\pm$0.83 & 19.01$\pm$0.28 & 58.43$\pm$3.80 & 0.38$\pm$0.11 & 0.54$\pm$0.01 & 14.39 \\
2177: NGC~3642 & p & nS & 0.1 & 11.45$\pm$0.87 & 3.09 $\pm$ 2.76 & 3.37$\pm$0.61 & 18.99$\pm$0.28 & 18.00$\pm$1.92 & 0.14$\pm$0.08 & 0.07$\pm$0.01 & 6.92 \\
2178: NGC~3885 & p & nS & 0.16 & 14.47$\pm$0.95 & 5.37 $\pm$ 6.46 & 1.98$\pm$0.82 & 19.84$\pm$0.37 & 27.22$\pm$2.77 & 0.34$\pm$0.16 & 0.55$\pm$0.01 & 11.83 \\
2179: NGC~3898 & c & C & 0.1 & 12.21$\pm$1.28 & 18.50 $\pm$ 15.98 & 3.94$\pm$0.88 & 21.21$\pm$0.91 & 43.79$\pm$11.96 & 0.32$\pm$0.10 & 0.43$\pm$0.00 & 40.59 \\
2180: NGC~3992 & c & C & 0.08 & 14.29$\pm$1.04 & 18.82 $\pm$ 13.07 & 2.95$\pm$0.81 & 20.38$\pm$0.25 & 78.19$\pm$10.79 & 0.22$\pm$0.09 & 0.46$\pm$0.00 & 12.33 \\
2181: NGC~4030 & p & nS & 0.09 & 16.51$\pm$0.98 & 11.28 $\pm$ 7.07 & 1.75$\pm$0.80 & 19.32$\pm$0.31 & 27.01$\pm$2.00 & 0.13$\pm$0.09 & 0.22$\pm$0.01 & 10.03 \\
2182: NGC~4062 & p & nS & 0.06 & 18.39$\pm$1.25 & 4.39 $\pm$ 3.29 & 1.47$\pm$1.24 & 20.06$\pm$0.12 & 37.11$\pm$1.40 & 0.37$\pm$0.30 & 0.46$\pm$0.02 & 2.21 \\
2183: NGC~4152 & p & nR & 0.07 & 16.70$\pm$0.63 & 2.79 $\pm$ 1.86 & 1.30$\pm$0.51 & 18.90$\pm$0.15 & 10.72$\pm$0.50 & 0.58$\pm$0.22 & 0.27$\pm$0.02 & 2.81 \\
2184: NGC~4203 & c & C & 0.11 & 14.48$\pm$0.72 & 6.99 $\pm$ 5.63 & 2.34$\pm$0.54 & 20.44$\pm$0.35 & 28.96$\pm$2.75 & 0.11$\pm$0.08 & 0.11$\pm$0.01 & 14.89 \\
2185: NGC~4245 & p & nR & 0.08 & 16.10$\pm$0.74 & 8.52 $\pm$ 4.98 & 1.90$\pm$0.69 & 20.42$\pm$0.52 & 26.58$\pm$2.56 & 0.16$\pm$0.09 & 0.29$\pm$0.02 & 14.04 \\
2186: NGC~4258 & p & nS & 0.04 & 14.35$\pm$0.61 & 14.98 $\pm$ 8.02 & 2.70$\pm$0.48 & 19.83$\pm$0.14 & 101.83$\pm$6.26 & 0.57$\pm$0.15 & 0.51$\pm$0.02 & 25.26 \\
2187: NGC~4260 & c & C & 0.07 & 15.09$\pm$0.63 & 15.31 $\pm$ 30.17 & 3.21$\pm$0.66 & 20.11$\pm$0.31 & 22.98$\pm$1.74 & 0.23$\pm$0.09 & 0.47$\pm$0.00 & 7.97 \\
2188: NGC~4274 & p & nS & 0.14 & 15.89$\pm$0.50 & 7.45 $\pm$ 6.82 & 1.82$\pm$0.48 & 20.04$\pm$0.19 & 45.18$\pm$2.81 & 0.43$\pm$0.16 & 0.40$\pm$0.05 & 10.83 \\
2189: NGC~4314 & p & nR & 0.16 & 14.64$\pm$0.81 & 4.95 $\pm$ 6.48 & 2.37$\pm$0.78 & 19.09$\pm$0.20 & 23.95$\pm$0.79 & 0.18$\pm$0.11 & 0.25$\pm$0.02 & 6.62 \\
2190: NGC~4340 & p & nB & 0.07 & 15.25$\pm$0.88 & 6.46 $\pm$ 3.06 & 2.00$\pm$0.67 & 20.63$\pm$0.36 & 30.97$\pm$3.60 & 0.10$\pm$0.06 & 0.31$\pm$0.01 & 11.73 \\
2191: NGC~4371 & p & nR & 0.07 & 15.42$\pm$0.24 & 7.74 $\pm$ 3.54 & 2.02$\pm$0.30 & 21.00$\pm$0.13 & 44.95$\pm$1.63 & 0.30$\pm$0.14 & 0.35$\pm$0.04 & 17.44 \\
2192: NGC~4379 & c & C & 0.04 & 13.78$\pm$0.35 & 15.35 $\pm$ 13.26 & 3.48$\pm$0.22 & 20.31$\pm$0.48 & 11.33$\pm$1.57 & 0.12$\pm$0.09 & 0.18$\pm$0.01 & - \\
2193: NGC~4380 & p & nS & 0.06 & 17.84$\pm$0.72 & 5.65 $\pm$ 3.04 & 1.58$\pm$0.69 & 20.68$\pm$0.14 & 31.84$\pm$1.41 & 0.22$\pm$0.16 & 0.43$\pm$0.00 & 4 \\
2194: NGC~4394 & p & nS & 0.09 & 15.77$\pm$0.60 & 5.10 $\pm$ 3.98 & 1.65$\pm$0.50 & 19.70$\pm$0.24 & 27.22$\pm$2.03 & 0.12$\pm$0.08 & 0.33$\pm$0.05 & 9.63 \\
2195: NGC~4448 & p & nP & 0.08 & 16.84$\pm$0.80 & 10.69 $\pm$ 15.96 & 1.68$\pm$0.68 & 20.19$\pm$0.72 & 30.52$\pm$4.74 & 0.26$\pm$0.12 & 0.51$\pm$0.03 & 14.04 \\
2196: NGC~4489 & c & C & 0.05 & 12.95$\pm$0.40 & 6.00 $\pm$ 9.76 & 3.58$\pm$0.33 & 20.81$\pm$0.25 & 16.77$\pm$1.07 & 0.09$\pm$0.07 & 0.10$\pm$0.00 & 9.78 \\
2197: NGC~4501 & p & nS & 0.16 & 17.74$\pm$0.92 & 6.96 $\pm$ 5.42 & 0.91$\pm$0.63 & 19.34$\pm$0.17 & 46.81$\pm$2.88 & 0.17$\pm$0.16 & 0.48$\pm$0.00 & 4 \\
2198: NGC~4536 & p & nS & 0.12 & 15.47$\pm$0.40 & 4.33 $\pm$ 2.90 & 1.88$\pm$0.35 & 20.99$\pm$0.16 & 70.61$\pm$7.24 & 0.41$\pm$0.14 & 0.53$\pm$0.01 & 9.63 \\
2199: NGC~4564 & c & C & 0.04 & 12.04$\pm$0.78 & 8.67 $\pm$ 5.06 & 3.70$\pm$0.66 & 19.21$\pm$0.25 & 18.73$\pm$1.47 & 0.24$\pm$0.08 & 0.54$\pm$0.02 & 13.09 \\
2200: NGC~4569 & p & nB & 0.09 & 12.13$\pm$1.12 & 1.64 $\pm$ 1.49 & 1.90$\pm$0.56 & 19.77$\pm$0.11 & 69.15$\pm$3.36 & 0.48$\pm$0.16 & 0.56$\pm$0.01 & 6.67 \\
2201: NGC~4570 & c & C & 0.08 & 11.85$\pm$0.57 & 10.14 $\pm$ 11.87 & 3.65$\pm$0.49 & 18.67$\pm$0.18 & 22.90$\pm$0.98 & 0.31$\pm$0.10 & 0.65$\pm$0.01 & 8.83 \\
2202: NGC~4579 & p & C & 0.08 & 15.41$\pm$1.31 & 17.48 $\pm$ 15.02 & 2.04$\pm$0.92 & 20.19$\pm$0.31 & 47.62$\pm$2.82 & 0.22$\pm$0.12 & 0.23$\pm$0.01 & 26.06 \\
2203: NGC~4639 & p & nS & 0.1 & 16.06$\pm$0.89 & 4.43 $\pm$ 3.29 & 1.64$\pm$0.90 & 20.57$\pm$0.49 & 26.97$\pm$4.22 & 0.20$\pm$0.10 & 0.37$\pm$0.01 & 8.79 \\
2204: NGC~4660 & c & C & 0.09 & 11.37$\pm$0.61 & 9.75 $\pm$ 5.71 & 3.81$\pm$0.33 & 19.83$\pm$0.82 & 11.57$\pm$2.79 & 0.38$\pm$0.11 & 0.35$\pm$0.04 & - \\
2205: NGC~4698 & c & C & 0.12 & 13.27$\pm$0.64 & 16.96 $\pm$ 27.26 & 3.60$\pm$0.52 & 21.70$\pm$0.47 & 53.35$\pm$5.26 & 0.16$\pm$0.07 & 0.36$\pm$0.04 & 13.09 \\
2206: NGC~4725 & c & C & 0.07 & 13.77$\pm$1.01 & 62.72 $\pm$ 119.71 & 3.19$\pm$0.83 & 20.63$\pm$0.27 & 87.05$\pm$5.33 & 0.14$\pm$0.07 & 0.41$\pm$0.01 & 10.5 \\
2207: NGC~4736 & p & nB & 0.1 & 14.13$\pm$0.54 & 9.68 $\pm$ 7.23 & 1.62$\pm$0.51 & 18.08$\pm$0.76 & 29.93$\pm$9.41 & 0.17$\pm$0.09 & 0.18$\pm$0.04 & 17.89 \\
2208: NGC~4772 & c & C & 0.07 & 14.50$\pm$0.72 & 15.12 $\pm$ 22.40 & 3.20$\pm$0.57 & 21.15$\pm$0.36 & 44.70$\pm$5.00 & 0.07$\pm$0.05 & 0.38$\pm$0.03 & 15 \\
2209: NGC~4826 & p & nS & 0.08 & 11.72$\pm$0.79 & 16.71 $\pm$ 21.46 & 3.94$\pm$0.68 & 18.89$\pm$0.14 & 60.48$\pm$2.29 & 0.24$\pm$0.08 & 0.44$\pm$0.00 & 11.23 \\
2210: NGC~4941 & p & nB & 0.12 & 15.70$\pm$0.80 & 2.73 $\pm$ 2.37 & 1.48$\pm$0.56 & 20.17$\pm$0.18 & 31.39$\pm$1.89 & 0.32$\pm$0.14 & 0.41$\pm$0.03 & 6.22 \\
2211: NGC~5055 & p & nS & 0.08 & 17.33$\pm$0.55 & 46.91 $\pm$ 34.28 & 1.84$\pm$0.49 & 20.26$\pm$8.87 & 99.75$\pm$173.35 & 0.32$\pm$0.14 & 0.44$\pm$0.01 & 40.69 \\
2212: NGC~5194 & p & nS & 0.08 & 18.10$\pm$0.21 & 13.83 $\pm$ 1.95 & 0.55$\pm$0.14 & 19.87$\pm$0.10 & 86.82$\pm$3.42 & 0.16$\pm$0.12 & 0.22$\pm$0.04 & 22.55 \\
2213: NGC~5273 & c & C & 0.09 & 12.94$\pm$0.75 & 5.32 $\pm$ 13.74 & 3.41$\pm$0.56 & 20.05$\pm$0.21 & 21.16$\pm$1.27 & 0.14$\pm$0.08 & 0.14$\pm$0.00 & 6.47 \\
2214: NGC~5879 & p & nS & 0.06 & 16.53$\pm$0.31 & 9.23 $\pm$ 4.23 & 1.65$\pm$0.37 & 20.12$\pm$0.19 & 33.03$\pm$1.74 & 0.41$\pm$0.16 & 0.64$\pm$0.00 & 9 \\
2215: NGC~5970 & p & nB & 0.09 & 16.68$\pm$0.42 & 5.90 $\pm$ 3.12 & 1.46$\pm$0.74 & 19.20$\pm$0.51 & 23.18$\pm$2.94 & 0.24$\pm$0.13 & 0.37$\pm$0.00 & 5.92 \\
2216: NGC~6744 & c & C & 0.06 & 14.81$\pm$0.62 & 26.55 $\pm$ 21.72 & 2.53$\pm$0.59 & 19.68$\pm$0.22 & 134.85$\pm$15.12 & 0.19$\pm$0.10 & 0.45$\pm$0.03 & 15 \\
2217: NGC~6946 & p & nP & 0.1 & 15.90$\pm$0.99 & 4.41 $\pm$ 4.47 & 1.87$\pm$0.71 & 20.57$\pm$0.13 & 147.12$\pm$16.83 & 0.37$\pm$0.14 & 0.23$\pm$0.02 & 7.22 \\
2218: NGC~7177 & p & nS & 0.08 & 16.60$\pm$0.28 & 7.90 $\pm$ 3.07 & 1.51$\pm$0.36 & 19.56$\pm$0.42 & 18.84$\pm$1.56 & 0.39$\pm$0.13 & 0.31$\pm$0.00 & 10.68 \\
2219: NGC~7217 & p & nS & 0.08 & 16.24$\pm$1.44 & 27.38 $\pm$ 33.54 & 1.90$\pm$0.96 & 20.47$\pm$0.53 & 38.81$\pm$4.57 & 0.08$\pm$0.07 & 0.09$\pm$0.00 & 19.45 \\
2220: NGC~7457 & c & C & 0.07 & 15.28$\pm$0.83 & 6.28 $\pm$ 4.88 & 2.44$\pm$0.71 & 20.02$\pm$0.19 & 26.89$\pm$1.23 & 0.25$\pm$0.12 & 0.44$\pm$0.01 & 6.62 \\
2221: NGC~7743 & c & C & 0.08 & 11.28$\pm$0.87 & 22.16 $\pm$ 36.40 & 5.12$\pm$0.49 & 20.63$\pm$0.22 & 24.89$\pm$1.98 & 0.09$\pm$0.08 & 0.24$\pm$0.04 & 5 \\
2222: \enddata
2223: \end{deluxetable}
2224: \clearpage
2225: \newpage
2226: \appendix
2227: \section{Profiles And Images Of Sample Galaxies}
2228:
2229: Here we show all bulge-disk decompositions reported on in this
2230: paper. All profiles are plotted against $r^{1/4}$ in arcseconds. As
2231: stated earlier we do not fit nuclei, bars, rings, lenses, and other
2232: distortions to to surface brightness profile. Those data points
2233: included in the fitting are represented by filled circles, those not
2234: included in the fitting are represented by open circles. We also show
2235: representations of the model fit to the galaxies, as black lines. We
2236: show the S\'ersic function bulge, the exponential disk, and the
2237: combination (equation 1).
2238:
2239: Each figure gives the name of the galaxy, the Hubble type, the total
2240: absolute V-band magnitude, the S\'ersic index of the bulge, the
2241: root-mean-squared deviation of the fit (in magnitudes arcsec$^{-2}$),
2242: and the classification of the bulge. We also note (in the lower left)
2243: the region of the fit, and any data not included is noted as well.
2244:
2245: For each galaxy we also show an image of the galaxy. Each image
2246: indicates the telescope from which is came, and the filter used for
2247: the image. The images are shown such that readers can associate those
2248: structures not fit with structures in the images (such as bar).
2249:
2250: \begin{figure*}[b]
2251: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n613fit.eps}
2252: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{n613pfcV.eps}
2253: \vskip 20pt
2254: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n628fit.eps}
2255: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{n628acsV.eps}
2256: \caption{Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}.\label{fig:profs}}
2257: \end{figure*}
2258:
2259: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2260: \begin{figure*}[t]
2261: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n1022fit.eps}
2262: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{n1022pfcV.eps}
2263: \vskip 20pt
2264: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n1300fit.eps}
2265: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{n1300pfcV.eps}
2266: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2267: \end{figure*}
2268:
2269: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2270: \begin{figure*}[t]
2271: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n1313fit.eps}
2272: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n1313danV.eps}
2273: \vskip 20pt
2274: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n1325fit.eps}
2275: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n1325wfpcW.eps}
2276: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2277: \end{figure*}
2278:
2279: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2280: \begin{figure*}[t]
2281: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n1353fit.eps}
2282: \includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{n1353wfpcW.eps}
2283: \vskip 20pt
2284: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n1398fit.eps}
2285: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n1398pfcV.eps}
2286: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2287: \end{figure*}
2288:
2289: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2290: \begin{figure*}[t]
2291: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n1425fit.eps}
2292: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n1425pfcV.eps}
2293: \vskip 20pt
2294: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n1512fit.eps}
2295: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n1512lcoV.eps}
2296: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2297: \end{figure*}
2298:
2299: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2300: \begin{figure*}[t]
2301: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n1566fit.eps}
2302: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n1566lcoV.eps}
2303: \vskip 20pt
2304: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n2775fit.eps}
2305: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n2775sdssR.eps}
2306: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2307: \end{figure*}
2308:
2309: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2310: \begin{figure*}[t]
2311: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n2787fit.eps}
2312: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n2787jktI.eps}
2313: \vskip 20pt
2314: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n2835fit.eps}
2315: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n2835danV.eps}
2316: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2317: \end{figure*}
2318:
2319: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2320: \begin{figure*}[t]
2321: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n2841fit.eps}
2322: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n2841acsI.eps}
2323: \vskip 20pt
2324: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n2880fit.eps}
2325: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n2880sdssR.eps}
2326: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2327: \end{figure*}
2328:
2329: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2330: \begin{figure*}[t]
2331: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n2903fit.eps}
2332: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n2903palg.eps}
2333: \vskip 20pt
2334: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n2950fit.eps}
2335: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n2950sdssR.eps}
2336: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2337: \end{figure*}
2338:
2339: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2340: \begin{figure*}[t]
2341: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3031fit.eps}
2342: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3031sdssG.eps}
2343: \vskip 20pt
2344: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3115fit.eps}
2345: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3115lcoV.eps}
2346: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2347: \end{figure*}
2348:
2349: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2350: \begin{figure*}[t]
2351: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3166fit.eps}
2352: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3166pfcV.eps}
2353: \vskip 20pt
2354: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3169fit.eps}
2355: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3169pfcV.eps}
2356: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2357: \end{figure*}
2358:
2359: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2360: \begin{figure*}[t]
2361: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3185fit.eps}
2362: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3185pfcV.eps}
2363: \vskip 20pt
2364: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3198fit.eps}
2365: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3198kpV.eps}
2366: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2367: \end{figure*}
2368:
2369: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2370: \begin{figure*}[t]
2371: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3245fit.eps}
2372: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3245sdssG.eps}
2373: \vskip 20pt
2374: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3259fit.eps}
2375: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3259sdssG.eps}
2376: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2377: \end{figure*}
2378:
2379: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2380: \begin{figure*}[t]
2381: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3277fit.eps}
2382: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3277sdssG.eps}
2383: \vskip 20pt
2384: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3338fit.eps}
2385: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3338pfcV.eps}
2386: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2387: \end{figure*}
2388:
2389: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2390: \begin{figure*}[t]
2391: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3351fit.eps}
2392: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3351sdssG.eps}
2393: \vskip 20pt
2394: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3368fit.eps}
2395: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3368sdssG.eps}
2396: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2397: \end{figure*}
2398:
2399: \clearpage
2400: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2401: \begin{figure*}[t]
2402: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3423fit.eps}
2403: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3423sdssG.eps}
2404: \vskip 20pt
2405: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3521fit.eps}
2406: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3521ct4mV.eps}
2407: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2408: \end{figure*}
2409:
2410: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2411: \begin{figure*}[t]
2412: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3593fit.eps}
2413: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3593pfcV.eps}
2414: \vskip 20pt
2415: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3627fit.eps}
2416: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3627kp4V.eps}
2417: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2418: \end{figure*}
2419:
2420: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2421: \begin{figure*}[t]
2422: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3642fit.eps}
2423: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3642sdssG.eps}
2424: \vskip 20pt
2425: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3885fit.eps}
2426: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3885wfpcW.eps}
2427: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2428: \end{figure*}
2429:
2430: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2431: \begin{figure*}[t]
2432: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3898fit.eps}
2433: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3898sdssG.eps}
2434: \vskip 20pt
2435: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n3992fit.eps}
2436: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n3992sdssG.eps}
2437: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2438: \end{figure*}
2439:
2440: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2441: \begin{figure*}[t]
2442: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4030fit.eps}
2443: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4030sdssG.eps}
2444: \vskip 20pt
2445: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4062fit.eps}
2446: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4062pfcV.eps}
2447: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2448: \end{figure*}
2449: \clearpage
2450:
2451: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2452: \begin{figure*}[t]
2453: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4152fit.eps}
2454: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4152jktV.eps}
2455: \vskip 20pt
2456: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4203fit.eps}
2457: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4203sdssG.eps}
2458: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2459: \end{figure*}
2460:
2461: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2462: \begin{figure*}[t]
2463: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4245fit.eps}
2464: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4245sdssG.eps}
2465: \vskip 20pt
2466: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4258fit.eps}
2467: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4258palG.eps}
2468: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2469: \end{figure*}
2470:
2471: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2472: \begin{figure*}[t]
2473: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4260fit.eps}
2474: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4260sdssG.eps}
2475: \vskip 20pt
2476: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4274fit.eps}
2477: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4274pfcV.eps}
2478: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2479: \end{figure*}
2480:
2481: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2482: \begin{figure*}[t]
2483: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4314fit.eps}
2484: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4314pfcV.eps}
2485: \vskip 20pt
2486: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4340fit.eps}
2487: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4340sdssG.eps}
2488: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2489: \end{figure*}
2490:
2491: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2492: \begin{figure*}[t]
2493: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4371fit.eps}
2494: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4340sdssG.eps}
2495: \vskip 20pt
2496: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4379fit.eps}
2497: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4379sdssG.eps}
2498: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2499: \end{figure*}
2500:
2501: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2502: \begin{figure*}[t]
2503: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4380fit.eps}
2504: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4380sdssG.eps}
2505: \vskip 20pt
2506: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4394fit.eps}
2507: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4394pfcV.eps}
2508: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2509: \end{figure*}
2510:
2511: \clearpage
2512: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2513: \begin{figure*}[t]
2514: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4448fit.eps}
2515: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4448pfcV.eps}
2516:
2517: \vskip 20pt
2518: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4489fit.eps}
2519: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4489acsG.eps}
2520: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2521: \end{figure*}
2522:
2523: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2524: \begin{figure*}[t]
2525: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4501fit.eps}
2526: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4501palR.eps}
2527: \vskip 20pt
2528: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4536fit.eps}
2529: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4536kp4V.eps}
2530: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2531: \end{figure*}
2532:
2533: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2534: \begin{figure*}[t]
2535: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4564fit.eps}
2536: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4564sdssG.eps}
2537: \vskip 20pt
2538: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4569fit.eps}
2539: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4569sdssG.eps}
2540: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2541: \end{figure*}
2542:
2543: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2544: \begin{figure*}[t]
2545: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4570fit.eps}
2546: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4570sdssG.eps}
2547: \vskip 20pt
2548: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4579fit.eps}
2549: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4579kp4V.eps}
2550: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2551: \end{figure*}
2552:
2553: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2554: \begin{figure*}[t]
2555: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4639fit.eps}
2556: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4639sdssG.eps}
2557: \vskip 20pt
2558: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4660fit.eps}
2559: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4660acsG.eps}
2560: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2561: \end{figure*}
2562:
2563:
2564: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2565: \begin{figure*}[t]
2566: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4698fit.eps}
2567: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4698pfcV.eps}
2568: \vskip 20pt
2569: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4725fit.eps}
2570: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4725kpnoV.eps}
2571:
2572: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2573: \end{figure*}
2574:
2575: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2576: \begin{figure*}[t]
2577: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4736fit.eps}
2578: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4736kpnoV.eps}
2579: \vskip 20pt
2580: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4772fit.eps}
2581: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4772sdssG.eps}
2582: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2583: \end{figure*}
2584:
2585: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2586: \begin{figure*}[t]
2587: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4826fit.eps}
2588: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4826kpnoV.eps}
2589: \vskip 20pt
2590: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n4941fit.eps}
2591: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n4941pfcV.eps}
2592:
2593: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2594: \end{figure*}
2595:
2596:
2597: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2598: \begin{figure*}[t]
2599: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n5055fit.eps}
2600: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n5055sdssG.eps}
2601: \vskip 20pt
2602: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n5194fit.eps}
2603: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n5194kpnoV.eps}
2604: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2605: \end{figure*}
2606:
2607: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2608: \begin{figure*}[t]
2609: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n5273fit.eps}
2610: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n5273sdssG.eps}
2611: \vskip 20pt
2612: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n5879fit.eps}
2613: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n5879sdssG.eps}
2614: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2615: \end{figure*}
2616:
2617:
2618: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2619: \begin{figure*}[t]
2620: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n5970fit.eps}
2621: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n5970jktV.eps}
2622: \vskip 20pt
2623: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n6744fit.eps}
2624: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n6744danV.eps}
2625: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2626: \end{figure*}
2627:
2628: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2629: \begin{figure*}[t]
2630: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n6946fit.eps}
2631: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n6946pfcV.eps}
2632: \vskip 20pt
2633: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n7177fit.eps}
2634: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n7177jktV.eps}
2635: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2636: \end{figure*}
2637:
2638: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2639: \begin{figure*}[t]
2640: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n7217fit.eps}
2641: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n7217whtV.eps}
2642: \vskip 20pt
2643: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n7457fit.eps}
2644: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n7457pfcV.eps}
2645: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2646: \end{figure*}
2647:
2648: \setcounter{figure}{14}
2649: \begin{figure*}[t]
2650: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{n7743fit.eps}
2651: \includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{n7743jktV.eps}
2652: \caption{Cont. Plot axes and symbols are same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:egprof}}
2653: \end{figure*}
2654: \clearpage
2655:
2656: \section{Choice Of Fitting Range: Nuclear Deviations}
2657:
2658: Nuclear star cluster (nuclei) are commonly found in intermediate and
2659: late-type galaxies \citep{carollo2002,boeker2002}. They are often
2660: easily distinguished from the bulge; they have much smaller effective
2661: radii and have higher effective surface brightness. When carrying out
2662: bulge-disk decompositions nuclei must be accounted for in some way. If
2663: included in the fit, a nucleus will increase the bulge S\'ersic index,
2664: $n_b$.
2665:
2666: Nuclei are quite compact; their surface brightness profiles fall off
2667: rapidly with radius. Thus, one can exclude the region of the surface
2668: brightness profile from the fit to Eq.~1, with out loosing much of the
2669: dynamic range of the fit. An alternative method is to include an extra
2670: component in the fitting routine (e.g.~\citealp{balcells2003}). We
2671: feel both are good methods, and both have advantages and
2672: disadvantages. For simplicity, we choose to remove the nucleus from
2673: the fit.
2674:
2675: \begin{figure*}[b]
2676: \begin{center}
2677: %\includegraphics[width=.95\textwidth]{nuc_fits.eps}
2678: \includegraphics[width=.95\textwidth]{figA1.eps}
2679: \end{center}
2680: \caption{Profiles of the residuals of data minus decompositions are
2681: shown for the innermost $\sim 10$ arcsec of eight galaxies. In each
2682: panel the red lines indicate the residuals of the initial fit
2683: without accounting for the nucleus, and the black lines indicate the
2684: residuals of the final fit. Other colors indicate intermediate
2685: iterations (yellow, green, blue, and cyan). The radius at which the
2686: fit begins is marked on each profile by a vertical mark ($\pm$ 0.1
2687: mag arcsec$^{-2}$). \label{fig:nuc}}
2688: \end{figure*}
2689:
2690: In Fig.~\ref{fig:nuc} we show how we choose the radius over which the
2691: nuclear component is excluded from the fit. First, a decomposition is
2692: attempted using the entire profile. A significant deviation ($\sim
2693: 0.3$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$) in from the fit in the center of the galaxy is
2694: interpreted as indicative of a nucleus. The desire is to find the
2695: radius at which the galaxy begins to be well described by an inner
2696: S\'ersic bulge plus outer exponential disk; thus we move the fitting
2697: radius to the first point at which the deviation is within a 0.1 mag
2698: arcsec$^{-2}$, which is the typical root-mean-squared deviation of
2699: galaxies in our fit.
2700:
2701: In Fig.~\ref{fig:nuc} we show a range of examples of this process. In
2702: each panel the red lines indicate the residuals of the initial fit
2703: without accounting for the nucleus, and the black lines indicate the
2704: residuals of the final fit. Other colors indicate intermediate
2705: iterations (yellow, green, blue, and cyan). NGC~4579 shows a very
2706: small nucleus that converges to a small residual quite quickly. On the
2707: contrary, NGC~1566 shows a very large nucleus, and without an
2708: objective method, the choice of the fitting region may be somewhat
2709: arbitrary. In each of these a key characteristic is that subsequent
2710: fits not only show smaller deviation in the center, but also have
2711: smaller residuals over the entire profile. NGC~2841 shows an example
2712: in which the overall residual drives us to choose to exclude a larger
2713: radius from the fit. The second fit (the yellow line) shows large
2714: residuals with apparent sub-structure. This is interpreted as
2715: indicating the presence of a nucleus, which is removed from the fit.
2716:
2717: NGC~5055 is a special case, illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:5055}. This
2718: galaxy has an unusually bright nucleus for an intermediate type galaxy
2719: (left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:5055}). Also, the nuclear component
2720: extends over a larger fraction of the galaxy's radius than is
2721: typical. The alternative interpretation is that this nucleus is the
2722: bulge, and it is surrounded by a lens that is apparent in the surface
2723: brightness profile (right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:5055}). The first
2724: interpretation results in a lower RMS deviation, and we choose this
2725: one. We do note that in this case, the choice of a nucleus is
2726: coincident with our result in this paper; that pseudobulges typically
2727: have smaller S\'ersic index. It is entirely possible that this galaxy
2728: is another example of a system with both a classical and
2729: pseudobulge. A more detailed study may be necessary to understand this
2730: galaxy.
2731:
2732: \begin{figure*}[h]
2733: \begin{center}
2734: \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{figA2a.eps}
2735: \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{figA2b.eps}
2736: %\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{n5055fit2.eps}
2737: %\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{n5055alt2.eps}
2738: \end{center}
2739: \caption{Two separate interpretations of NGC~5055 (see text). On the
2740: left, the center is interpreted as a nucleus. On the right, the
2741: center is interpreted as a bulge, and a shelf in the surface
2742: brightness profile is excluded. \label{fig:5055}}
2743: \end{figure*}
2744:
2745: \section{Choice Of Fitting Range: Bars, Rings, and Lenses}
2746:
2747: We now consider the effects of not including non-nuclear deviations to
2748: the surface brightness profiles such as bars and rings in galactic
2749: disks. This practice is largely subjective. Also, this practice
2750: assumes that the shapes of underlying bulges and disks in barred
2751: galaxies are not fundamentally different than those without bars,
2752: effectively treating the bars as additional components. Alternative
2753: methods, such as parameterization of the bar, and 2-D fitting are
2754: possible, but each has its shortfalls.
2755:
2756: Here we investigate the effects and biases of our choice to remove
2757: significant deviations to the initial best fit bulge-disk
2758: decomposition (Eq.~1) for each galaxy. These deviations are most
2759: commonly bars; however many other phenomena including rings, bright
2760: spiral structure, and lenses lead to similar deviations from the
2761: smooth fit. Also, it is sometimes the case that a bar is easily
2762: evident in an image, yet it is not identifiable in the
2763: profile. However, we can typically identify bars with increases in the
2764: ellipticity profile.
2765: \begin{figure*}[h]
2766: \begin{center}
2767: %\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{hole_hist.eps}
2768: \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{figA3.eps}
2769: \end{center}
2770: \caption{Distribution of the sizes of excluded regions from fits. The
2771: distribution of all exclusion sizes is shown as the black outline,
2772: the distribution of bars in the outer disk is shown in cyan, and the
2773: distribution of those occurring near the radius at which the bulge
2774: and disk are equal are shown as green
2775: shading. \label{fig:hole_hist}}
2776: \end{figure*}
2777:
2778: \begin{figure*}[h]
2779: \begin{center}
2780: %\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{robustness.eps}
2781: \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figA4.eps}
2782: \end{center}
2783: \caption{Each profile shows the affect of removing data from a profile
2784: and then fitting equation 1 to the profile. The innermost point in
2785: each profile is the best fit to the galaxy with no points
2786: removed. The profiles shown on the left are meant to mimic the
2787: effect of those distortions to the bulge-disk transition region, and
2788: the profiles on the right are meant to mimic those distortions only
2789: affecting the outer disk. \label{fig:robust}}
2790: \end{figure*}
2791:
2792: In Fig.~\ref{fig:hole_hist} we show the distribution of the sizes of
2793: those regions removed from the fits (i.e.~holes). The interested
2794: reader can investigate them in Fig.~\ref{fig:profs}; they are denoted
2795: by vertical hatch marks and open circles. We find that holes come in
2796: two variety: those which only affect the surface brightness of the
2797: disk, and those which affect the surface brightness of at the location
2798: in the profile where the bulge and disk are at equal surface
2799: brightness. In the figure $\Delta \log(hole) = \log(r_{out,hole}) -
2800: \log(r_{in,hole})$ where $r_{in,hole}$ is where the distortion to the
2801: surface brightness profile begins, and $r_{out,hole}$ is where the
2802: distortion ends. Similarly, $\Delta \log(fit)$ refers to the range of
2803: radius included in the fit. Fitting is done in logarithmic radius, and
2804: thus is the more appropriate radial coordinate, in this instance. The
2805: largest exclusion is 45\% of the fit radius. The distribution of all
2806: exclusion sizes is shown as the black outline, the distribution of
2807: bars in the outer disk is shown in cyan, and the distribution of those
2808: occurring near the radius at which the bulge and disk are equal are
2809: shown as green shading. It is interesting to note that those bars
2810: occurring near the bulge, affect the dynamic range of the fit more
2811: than those that only affect the outer disk.
2812:
2813: We attempt to be as conservative as possible when choosing what radii
2814: to exclude. Nonetheless it is possible that we exclude points
2815: unnecessarily. To study the effect of this, we take four galaxies that
2816: do not have significant distortions (NGC~1325, NGC~1425, NGC~2841, \&
2817: NGC~4203) and remove points to artificially create the effect of a bar
2818: in the surface brightness profile. We iteratively fit the profile, and
2819: follow the effect on the fit parameters as we increase the size of the
2820: excluded region. We are principally interested in the effect on the
2821: S\'ersic index which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:robust}. The break
2822: radius, $r_0$ in Eq.~1, is tightly coupled with $n_b$ and thus can
2823: absorb changes to the profile, so we show $r_0$ as well. The result is
2824: relatively encouraging. The larger effect occurs in those fits which
2825: mimic distortions to the outer disk only. In these the general trend
2826: is to increase the S\'ersic index. This reinforces the necessity to
2827: complement high resolution data with the widest, deepest photometry
2828: one can obtain. We note that the Fig.~\ref{fig:hole_hist} shows that
2829: only a few disk-only distortions are larger than 30\% of logarithmic
2830: radial range of the fit, but this is enough to artificially increase
2831: $n_b$ as much as $n_b \sim 1$. The effect of removing points near the
2832: bulge-disk transition radius appears to affect the fit to the profile
2833: relatively little. Taking this into consideration, it seems that, if
2834: anything, removing too many points is likely to drive the S\'ersic
2835: index to artificially higher values.
2836:
2837: Now we consider the opposite scenario: what is the effect of including
2838: bars in the fit to Eq.~1, instead of excluding them (or parameterizing
2839: them). For this test we simply refit all profiles of galaxies in which
2840: data has been removed from the fit including the whole range in $r$
2841: (yet still excluding nuclei). The results are shown in
2842: Fig.~\ref{fig:bar}. In all panels a one-to-one correlation is shown by
2843: a dashed line. It is no surprise that the root-mean-squared deviation
2844: (left panel) increases when we include those deviations. This is shown
2845: in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:bar}. The typical deviation in
2846: which distortions are omitted is 0.09 mag arcsec$^{-2}$, yet it
2847: increases to 0.14 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ when the distortion is
2848: included. The bulge-to-total luminosity ratio appears relatively
2849: robust (middle panel). Finally The S\'ersic index (right panel) is
2850: definitely affected by including bars and other distortions in the
2851: fit. The typical effect of including bars in the fit is to increase
2852: the S\'ersic index. This is no surprise, since more light is being
2853: included at radii beyond the half-light radius of the bulge. The
2854: effects of increasing S\'ersic index and a modest increase in scatter
2855: of $B/T$ are more pronounced in higher $B/T$ and higher S\'ersic index
2856: bulges.
2857:
2858: \begin{figure*}[h]
2859: \begin{center}
2860: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{figA5a.eps}
2861: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{figA5b.eps}
2862: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{figA5c.eps}
2863: %\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{n-nbars.eps}
2864: %\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{b2t-bars.eps}
2865: %\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{RMS-bars.eps}
2866: \end{center}
2867: \caption{Left panel: Comparison of bulge S\'ersic index for those
2868: galaxies in which a bar is removed from the fit to those in which
2869: the bar is included in the fit. Middle panel: The same but comparing
2870: the bulge-to-total luminosity ratio. Right panel: The same but
2871: comparing the root-mean-squared deviation of the fit. In all plots
2872: the dashed line represents a one-to-one
2873: correlation. \label{fig:bar}}
2874: \end{figure*}
2875:
2876: \end{document}