1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'ms.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
22: \documentclass[twocolumns]{emulateapj}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
36: %% the \begin{document} command.
37: %%
38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
41: %% for information.
42:
43: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
44: \newcommand{\myemail}{arettura@pha.jhu.edu}
45:
46: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
47:
48: %\slugcomment{{\bf Draft Version 3.0}}
49:
50: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
51: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
52: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
53: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
54: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
55: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
56:
57: \shorttitle{SFHs and Sizes of Massive ETGs at z=1.2}
58: \shortauthors{Rettura et al.}
59:
60: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
61: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
66: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
67: %% you desire.
68:
69: \title{Formation epochs, star formation histories and sizes of
70: massive early-type galaxies in cluster and field environments at
71: z=1.2: insights from the rest-frame UV}
72:
73:
74: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
75: %% author and affiliation information.
76: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
77: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
78: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
79: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
80:
81: %\author{Alessandro Rettura\altaffilmark{1}, Piero Rosati\altaffilmark{2}, Mario Nonino\altaffilmark{3}, Robert A. E. Fosbury\altaffilmark{4}, Raphael Gobat\altaffilmark{2}, Nicola Menci\altaffilmark{5}, Veronica Strazzullo\altaffilmark{6}, Ricardo Demarco\altaffilmark{1}, Holland C. Ford\altaffilmark{1}, Simona Mei\altaffilmark{7}}
82:
83: \author{Alessandro Rettura\altaffilmark{1}, P. Rosati\altaffilmark{2}, M. Nonino\altaffilmark{3}, R. A. E. Fosbury\altaffilmark{4}, R. Gobat\altaffilmark{2}, N. Menci\altaffilmark{5}, V. Strazzullo\altaffilmark{6}, S. Mei\altaffilmark{7}, R. Demarco\altaffilmark{1}, H. C. Ford\altaffilmark{1}}
84:
85: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA}
86: \altaffiltext{2}{ESO - European Southern Observatory, Garching bei Muenchen, D- 85748, Germany}
87: \altaffiltext{3}{INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste, via G.B. Tiepolo 11, 34131 Trieste, Italy}
88: \altaffiltext{4}{ST-ECF - Karl Schwarzschild straase, 2, Garching bei Muenchen, D- 85748, Germany}
89: \altaffiltext{5}{INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, via di Frascati 33, I-00040, Monteporzio, Italy}
90: \altaffiltext{6}{National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box O, Socorro, NM 87801.}
91: \altaffiltext{7}{GEPI, Observatoire de Paris, Section de Meudon, Meudon Cedex, France}
92:
93:
94: %\and
95:
96: %\author{R. J. Hanisch\altaffilmark{5}}
97: %\affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218}
98:
99: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
100: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
101: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
102: %% affiliation.
103:
104: %\altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.
105: %CTIO is operated by AURA, Inc.\ under contract to the National Science
106: %Foundation.}
107: %\altaffiltext{2}{Society of Fellows, Harvard University.}
108: %\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,
109: % 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
110: %\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}
111: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}
112:
113: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
114: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
115: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
116: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
117: %% editorial office after submission.
118:
119: \begin{abstract}
120: We derive stellar masses, ages and star formation histories of
121: massive early-type galaxies in the z=1.237 RDCS1252.9-2927 cluster
122: and compare them with those measured in a similarly mass-selected
123: sample of field contemporaries drawn from the GOODS South Field.
124: Robust estimates of these parameters are obtained by comparing a
125: large grid of composite stellar population models with 8-9 band
126: photometry in the rest-frame NUV, optical and IR, thus sampling the
127: entire relevant domain of emission of the different stellar
128: populations. Additionally, we present new, deep $U$-band photometry
129: of both fields, giving access to the critical FUV rest-frame, in
130: order to constrain empirically the dependence on the environment of
131: the most recent star formation processes. We also analyze the
132: morphological properties of both samples to examine the dependence
133: of their scaling relations on their mass and environment. We find
134: that early-type galaxies, both in the cluster and in the field, show
135: analogous optical morphologies, follow comparable mass vs. size
136: relation, have congruent average surface stellar mass densities and
137: lie on the same Kormendy relation. We also that a fraction of
138: early-type galaxies in the field employ longer timescales, $\tau$,
139: to assemble their mass than their cluster contemporaries. Hence we
140: conclude that, while the formation epoch of early-type only depends
141: on their mass, the environment does regulate the timescales of their
142: star formation histories. Our deep $U$-band imaging strongly
143: supports this conclusions. I shows that cluster galaxies are at
144: least 0.5 mag fainter than their field contemporaries of similar
145: mass and optical-to-infrared colors, implying that the last episode
146: of star formation must have happened more recently in the field than
147: in the cluster.
148:
149: \end{abstract}
150:
151: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
152: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
153: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
154: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
155:
156: \keywords{galaxies: clusters: individual: RDCS1252.9-2927 --- galaxies: high-redshift --- galaxies: fundamental parameters
157: --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: formation --- galaxies: elliptical --- cosmology: observations}
158:
159: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
160: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
161: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
162: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
163: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
164: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
165: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
166: %% each reference.
167:
168:
169: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
170: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
171: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
172: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
173: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
174: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
175: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
176: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
177: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
178: %%
179: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,
180: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first
181: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).
182: %% Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.
183:
184: \section{Introduction}
185:
186: The description of galaxy formation and evolution becomes far more
187: complicated if one considers that a galaxy is not an isolated island
188: universe. %In 1755 {\it Allgemeine Naturgesichte} Immanuel Kant
189: %correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars and
190: %suggested the possibility that other nebulae might also be similarly
191: %large structures in mutual interaction. Nowadays
192: Many observations have shown that galaxies are in fact parts of
193: groups, clusters and super-clusters, and that their properties are
194: correlated with the environment in which they live. Several authors
195: have shown that the local and the large-scale environments play an
196: important role in determining many galaxy properties, such as star
197: formation rate, gas content and morphology \citep{Kodama01,Balogh02}.
198: Several mechanisms have been proposed by theorists to account for these
199: effects, such as ram pressure stripping, mergers and tidal effects
200: \citep{Gunn72, Dressler97, Moore96,Moore98,Moore99}.
201:
202: More than half of all stars in the local Universe are found in massive
203: spheroids (e.g., \citet{Bell03}). To derive the assembly history of the bulk of the stellar
204: mass in the Universe it is thus fundamental to understand how and when
205: the early-type galaxies (hereafter, ETGs) built up their mass.
206: Several studies at $1< z < 1.5$ indicate that the most massive
207: galaxies in the field ($M_{stars} > 10^{11} M\odot$) may also be the
208: oldest at a given epoch
209: \citep{Cimatti04,Fontana04,Saracco04,Treu05,Juneau05,Tanaka05}. Other
210: studies have shown that the massive early-type cluster galaxies have
211: evolved mainly passively since $z \sim 1.0$ and that, since then,
212: field galaxies have evolved as slowly as cluster galaxies
213: \citep{Bernardi98, vandokkum96, vandokkum01, Treu99, Treu01,
214: Kochanek00, vandokkumstanford03, Strazzullo06, Depropris07}. These
215: studies imply an epoch of massive early-type galaxy formation at
216: redshifts well beyond $z = 2$. At earlier epochs, an abundance of
217: dusty and star forming galaxies are found, which appear to be the
218: progenitors of massive ETG \citep{Adelberger05}. Contrary to what is
219: observed in low redshift clusters, observations of $z >2$
220: proto-clusters have shown that the quiescent red sequence, which
221: traces the passively evolving ellipticals, has yet to appear
222: \citep{Kurk04}. This supports a paradigm where a more rapid evolution
223: in denser environments is occurring a $z \sim 2$. More recent studies
224: \citep{Kodama07, Zirm08} reveal the appearance of the red sequence of
225: galaxies by $2< z <3$, although with a large scatter.
226:
227: Thus, galaxy cluster samples at $1.0 < z < 2.0$ provide a key link to
228: the more active epoch at $z>2$ where proto-clusters around powerful
229: high redshift radio galaxies are not yet populated by passively
230: evolving ETG \citep{Kurk04}. Cluster galaxies have evolved and were
231: more luminous and bluer at high redshift (e.g. \citet{vandokkum98}).
232: Other observational results, e.g. \citet{Labbe05}, \citet{Papovich06},
233: \citet{Kriek06}, suggest that by $z \sim 2$ we are entering the star
234: formation epoch of massive ETGs, leading us to ask whether the
235: properties of ETG at intermediate redshift are consistent with this
236: interpretation. On the basis of these studies, the evidence seems not
237: only to indicate an epoch of massive early-type galaxy formation at $z
238: > 2$ but also that in the range $1.0 < z < 2$, the environmental
239: effects start to become more substantial.
240:
241: In fact, the most distant clusters known to date (all at $z<1.5$)
242: provide the strongest test of model predictions. Relevant
243: investigations include the observation of the aftermath of an off-axis
244: merger in XMMXCS2215.9-1738 \citep{Hilton07} at z=1.45, a tight red
245: sequence of ETG at $0.8< z < 1.3$ \citep{Rosati04, Blake03,
246: Blakeslee06, Lidman04, Mei06a, Mei06b}, a slowly evolving $K$-band
247: luminosity function at odds with hierarchical merging scenarios
248: \citep{Toft04, Strazzullo06}, and a tight and slowly evolving
249: Fundamental Plane (hereafter, FP) out to z=1.25 \citep{Hol05} have
250: been found. Intriguingly, \citet{Steidel05} have found that galaxies
251: in a proto-cluster environment at $z=2.3$ have mean stellar masses and
252: inferred ages that are $\sim 2$ times larger than identically selected
253: galaxies outside of the structure.
254:
255: A long-standing prediction of hierarchical models is that ETG in the
256: field are younger for a given mass than those in cluster cores, since
257: galaxy formation is accelerated in dense environments
258: \citep{Diaferio01, Delucia04}. Studies at low redshift, using chemical
259: abundance indicators \citep{Bernardi06} or the analysis of fossil
260: record data via line strength indices \citep{Thomas05, Clemens06,
261: Sanchez06} suggest that star formation in low density environments
262: was delayed by 1-2 Gyr. FP studies at $z \simeq 1$ have shown that
263: massive ETG in the field and in clusters ($M_{*} > 3 \cdot 10^{10}
264: M_{\odot}$) share the same FP evolution ($M/L$ vs. $z$) and have
265: approximately similar ages (within $\sim 0.4$ Gyr) and star formation
266: histories (e.g., \citet{vandokkum07}, \citet{dSA06}). FP studies have
267: also shown that $M/L$ ratios of massive cluster and field ETG evolve
268: slowly and regularly and that there is evidence that low-mass galaxies
269: evolve faster than high-mass galaxies (e.g,
270: \citet{Hol05,Jorgensen06,Treu05,vdW05,dSA05}). This so-called {\it
271: downsizing} effect is at odds with earlier semi-analytic model
272: predictions \citep{Baugh96, Kauffmann98, Somerville04} (see also
273: \citet{Renzini06}), although it can be reconciled in the most recent
274: versions based on $\Lambda CDM$ cosmogony \citep{Delucia06} and
275: assuming that dry-mergers between non star-forming ETG may occur and
276: build up the massive early-type galaxy population \citep{Khochfar03,
277: Bell05}.
278:
279: The majority of the above mentioned studies have focused on rest-frame
280: optical and/or infrared spectrophotometric data. However, the optical
281: spectrum remains largely unaffected by moderate amounts of past or
282: recent star formation. More recently, deep optical surveys (e.g.
283: FIRES \citep{Franx03}, GOODS \citep{Giava04}, COMBO-17 \citep{Wolf04},
284: MUSYC \citep{Gawiser06}) have provided access to the rest-frame UV
285: spectrum beyond $z\sim 0.5$, enabling more in-depth studies of the ETG
286: population. Studies of local ETG have revealed the existence of
287: relatively young stellar populations. Such fossil record observations
288: of absorption line-strengths \citep{Trager00, Thomas04} find that
289: stellar populations younger than $\sim 5$Gyr (i.e. which must have
290: formed between $z \sim 1$ and the present-day) are common in ETGs.
291: Furthermore, a significant fraction of z $\leq 0.1$ ETG show
292: relatively blue NUV-optical colors \citep{Kaviraj05}, within extended
293: disks \citep{Kauffmann07}, indicating star-formation over the past
294: Gyr. The inferred recent star-formation amounts to only $\sim1$\% of
295: the total stellar mass. In a more recent study, \citet{Kaviraj07} have
296: also shown that a significant fraction of $0.5 < z < 1.0$ ETG show
297: relatively blue NUV colors, indicating star-formation over the past 1
298: Gyr. At slightly higher redshift, spectroscopic studies at $z \sim
299: 1.2$ have shown that both the brightest ETG of RDCS1252.9-2927
300: \citep{Demarco07} and the massive ETG in the GDDS fields
301: \citep{Leborgne06} show evidence for recent (i.e., within 1Gyr)
302: star-formation on the basis of prominent post-starburst features in
303: galaxy spectra (e.g., $H_{\delta}$ absorption line).
304:
305: However, since little is known about the dependence on the environment
306: of the recent star-formation rates (hereafter, SFR) in ETG at $z
307: \simeq 1.2$, in this work, we complement our modeling of galaxy
308: Spectral Energy Distributions (hereafter, SEDs), from NUV to NIR,
309: presenting result of deep observations of ETG in cluster and field
310: obtained with {\it VLT}/VIMOS in the $U$-band filter, that directly
311: probes the FUV regime at the redshift of our samples, as shown in
312: Fig~\ref{sed_model}.
313:
314: By studying stellar population ages at $z=1.2$, we provide a key test
315: of the paradigm of an accelerated evolution in the highest density
316: environments. For galaxies observed at $z \leq 1$ most of their difference could have been
317: smoothed out by billion years of mostly passive evolution. By
318: comparing stellar masses, ages and inferred star formation histories
319: of cluster ellipticals with their field contemporaries, we directly
320: test the prediction that the cluster environment should display
321: accelerated evolution, resulting in larger masses and ages.
322:
323: The primary observational goal of this work is to use {\it HST}/ACS
324: in the rest-frame Near-UV (hereafter, NUV) and
325: optical\footnote{wavelength ranges which are known to be stellar
326: population age sensitive},and {\it VLT}/ISAAC, {\it Spitzer}/IRAC in
327: the rest-frame near-IR (hereafter, NIR)\footnote{a wavelength range
328: which is known to be strongly correlated with the underlying stellar
329: mass \citep{Gavazzi96}} to measure stellar population ages and
330: masses for ETG in the z=1.237 RDCS1252.9-2927 cluster
331: \citep{Rosati04} and compare them to those measured on similarly
332: selected sample of field contemporaries drawn from the GOODS South
333: Field. This allows us to directly analyze the entire
334: relevant spectral energy distribution of the different stellar populations,
335: enabling us to improve constraints on galaxy ages, masses and star formation
336: histories in both environments at $z \simeq 1.2$.
337:
338: We note that in an accompanying paper, \citet{Gobat08}, we also compare
339: the coadded spectroscopic information available on both samples of
340: ETG with a large grid of composite stellar population models.
341:
342: We also analyze the morphological properties of ETG in the field and
343: in the cluster. By studying scaling relations in this relevant
344: redshift range we can trace back where the majority of stars formed as
345: a function of the
346: environment and stellar mass.\\
347:
348: The structure of this paper is as follows. The description of our
349: data-sets, cataloging and sample selection is described in \S 2. In \S 3
350: we describe our methods in deriving galaxy sizes and morphologies as
351: well as inferring ages and masses from stellar population analysis.
352: The results of our study are discussed in \S 4, while in \S
353: \hspace{0.05cm} 5 we summarize our conclusions.
354:
355: We assume a $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$, $\Omega_{m} = 0.27$ and $H_{0}
356: = 71\ \rm{km} \cdot \rm{s}^{-1} \cdot \rm{Mpc}^{-1}$ flat universe
357: \citep{Spergel03}, and use magnitudes in the AB system throughout this
358: work.
359:
360: \section{Description of the data}
361:
362: This work is based on spectroscopic and photometric data of two fields
363: which have extensive spectral coverage over the wavelength
364: range $0.4-8\mu$m: the Chandra Deep Field South (hereafter, CDFS)
365: observed by the Great Observatories Origin Deep Survey (GOODS,
366: \citep{Giava04}) and the field around the X-ray luminous cluster
367: RDCS1252.9-2927 at $z=1.237$ \citep[hereafter CL1252;][]{Rosati04}.
368:
369: The archival data for the CDFS comprise deep imaging in 8 bands,
370: \textit{HST}/ACS ($B_{F435W}$, $V_{F606W}$, $i_{775W}$, $z_{F850LP}$)
371: \citep{Giava04}, \textit{VLT}/ISAAC, ($J$,$K_s$) (Retzlaff et al., in
372: prep.), \textit{Spitzer}/IRAC ($3.6 \mu\mbox{}m$, $4.5 \mu\mbox{}m$)
373: \footnote{CDFS imaging and spectroscopic data are publicly available
374: through the GOODS collaboration web-site:
375: http://www.stsci.edu/science/goods/.}, as well as spectroscopic data
376: taken with \textit{VLT}/FORS2 300I grism by the ESO-GOODS survey
377: \citep{Vanzella05,Vanzella06} and the K20 survey \citep{Cimatti02}.
378:
379: The archival data for CL1252 consist of deep imaging in 9 bands,
380: \textit{VLT}/FORS2 ($B$, $V$, $R$), \textit{HST}/ACS
381: ($i_{F775W}$,$z_{F850lp}$) \citep{Blake03}, \textit{VLT}/ISAAC
382: ($J_s$,$K_s$) \citep{Lidman04}, \textit{Spitzer}/IRAC ($3.6
383: \mu\mbox{}m$, $4.5 \mu\mbox{}m$), as well as spectroscopic data taken
384: with \textit{VLT}/FORS2 and already published in \citet{Demarco07}.
385:
386: \subsection{Cataloging of observations and sample selection}
387:
388: This work builds on the analysis performed on the same data-sets by
389: \citet{Rettura06}, where photometric-stellar (hereafter, simply {\it
390: stellar}) masses and dynamical masses of $z\sim 1$ ETG with known
391: velocity dispersion measurements were analyzed for both the CDFS
392: and CL1252. We refer to the above mentioned paper for more
393: details about data reduction and cataloging (e.g., photometrical
394: errors, PSF-matched photometry).
395:
396: The resulting data-sets for the cluster and the field have homogeneous
397: depths and wavelength coverage, allowing the application of similar
398: selection criteria for both samples. The data allow the reconstruction
399: of galaxy SED by sampling the entire relevant spectrum range emitted
400: by all the different stellar populations. As is shown in
401: Fig~\ref{sed_model}, our SED-fitting analysis is based on data from
402: the NUV rest-frame ($B$-band observations are centered at $\lambda
403: \sim 2000$\AA\mbox{} at z$\simeq 1.2$) through the NIR (IRAC/$4.5
404: \mu$m imaging probes the $\sim 2\mu m$ rest-frame at the redshift of
405: CL1252).
406:
407: The availability of 8 to 9 passbands spanning such a large wavelength
408: range enables the estimate of accurate stellar masses of ETGs
409: \citep{Rettura06} and makes it possible to compare stellar population
410: properties of homogeneously selected samples of ETG in both
411: environments. In addition, high quality \textit{HST}/ACS
412: $z_{F850LP}$-band imaging enables the study of their morphologies in
413: great detail.
414:
415: Throughout this work, we compare morphological and stellar population
416: properties of cluster galaxies with those shown by a sample of {\it
417: field contemporaries} drawn from the spectroscopic surveys in the
418: redshift range $z= 1.237 \pm 0.15$. Although photometric-redshift
419: selected samples are widely employed in the literature, we do not
420: favor this approach, as we believe it may result in the pollution of
421: the samples by a large fraction of redshift outliers, which could
422: adversily affect our conclusions.
423:
424: The depth of the {\it VLT}/ISAAC images and the extended
425: multi-wavelength data for both fields allows us to define complete
426: mass-selected samples. In an accompanying paper, \citet{Gobat08}, we
427: study the relative photometric and spectroscopic completeness of our
428: CDFS and CL1252 mass-selected samples. The reader is referred to that
429: paper for more details. Here, we note that photometric completeness
430: is obtained if we limit our analysis to stellar masses larger than
431: $M_{lim}= 5 \cdot 10^{10} M_{\odot}$.
432:
433: A selection of CL1252 ETG along the cluster red-sequence is
434: efficiently provided by a color selection of $i_{775}-z_{850} > 0.8$
435: \citep{Blake03}. In the spectroscopic sample of \citet{Demarco07}
436: there are 22 red sequence galaxies ($i_{775}-z_{850} > 0.8$) with
437: $M_{*} > M_{lim}$, of which 18 are classified as passive ETGs, with no
438: emission line in their observed spectra. For the corresponding CDFS
439: field sample, the same criteria yield 27 ETG in CDFS with FORS2
440: spectra giving redshift in the range $z= 1.237 \pm 0.15$. From visual
441: morphological analysis, following the classification scheme of
442: \citet{Blake03}, the vast majority of the selected ETG also have
443: typical elliptical or lenticular morphologies
444:
445: Comparing, as a function of stellar mass, each spectroscopic sample
446: with its corresponding photometric-redshift sample (see Fig.1 and
447: Table 1 of \citet{Gobat08}) we find that the spectroscopic follow-up
448: for CL1252 is more complete at the low mass end (reaching a $\sim 60
449: \%$ completeness by $M_{*}=M_{lim}$) than in CDFS (reaching a $60 \%$
450: completeness only by $M_{*}\simeq 2 \cdot 10^{11} M_{\odot}$). Thus
451: our sample of ETG in CDFS is likely to be more incomplete at the low
452: mass end than the CL1252 one. We will return to this point when
453: discussing our results in \S 4.2.
454:
455: %The depth of the {\it VLT}/ISAAC images of both fields allows us to
456: %define complete mass-selected samples. The CDFS and CL1252 $K_{s}$-band
457: %images are photometrically complete down to $K_{s} = 24$. At $z
458: %\simeq 1.2$ the $K_{s}$-band photometry is considered a good proxy of
459: %the stellar mass, with $10^{10} M_{\odot}$ corresponding to $K_{s}
460: %\sim 23$ \citep{Strazzullo06}, which we take as a reliable mass
461: %completeness limit. On the other hand, the spectroscopic follow-up
462: %work is limited to approximately $K_{s} \simeq 22$ for ETG in both
463: %samples, corresponding to $R_{Vega} \sim 25$ and stellar mass, $M_{*}
464: %\simeq 3 \cdot 10^{10} M_{\odot}$. Therefore we limit our analysis to
465: %photometric stellar masses larger than $M_{lim}= 5 \cdot 10^{10}
466: %M_{\odot}$ .
467:
468: \subsection{VIMOS $U$-band photometry of CDFS and RDCS1252.9-2927
469: fields.}
470:
471: The new observations with \textit{VLT}/VIMOS in the $U$-band allow us
472: to directly study the FUV rest-frame emission, which is very sensitive
473: to recent star formation. This allows us to constrain the
474: instantaneous and recent star-formation in massive ETG as a function
475: of their environment.
476:
477: The reader is referred to \citet{Nonino08} for more details on data
478: reduction and cataloging. These surveys provide deep $U$-band imaging
479: in the CDFS for a total integration time of $\sim $15h, to AB depths
480: of $U$= 28.27 mag (3$\sigma$, 1'' radius aperture), and in the cluster
481: region for a total integration time of $\sim$2.5h, to AB depth of
482: $U$=27.3 mag. We note that the $\sim$1 mag difference in depth between
483: the two data-sets is not only due to the difference in the total
484: allocated time, but also to the larger galactic extinction at the
485: location of the CL1252 cluster ($A(V)=0.247$, compared to the one at
486: the CDFS location, $A(V)=0.026$). Assuming an extinction following
487: the \citet{Cardelli88} relation, we estimate a dimming of $\sim 0.4$
488: mag in the VIMOS $U$-band for CL1252 with respect to CDFS.
489:
490: The VIMOS U-band filter has a colour term with respect to
491: standard Johnson U-band filter. However this term has been set to
492: zero both in CL1252 and CDFS fields in the process of catalog
493: creation, thus placing the reported magnitudes in the VIMOS-U system.
494:
495: \section{Data Analysis}
496:
497: \subsection{Derivation of Galaxy Sizes and Morphologies}
498:
499: To find structural differences shown by ETG of the
500: same mass in different environments we have to study their morphology
501: in a more quantitative way than a simple visual analysis. One way is
502: to model and compare their galaxy light distributions, which are known
503: to correlate with galaxy type and dynamical state. We also measure and
504: compare galaxy sizes as a function of their mass, to obtain
505: information on the physical scale of the potential well in which the
506: stellar mass is assembled.
507:
508: We have used GIM2D, a fitting algorithm for parameterized
509: two-dimensional modeling of surface brightness (SB) distribution
510: \citep{Simard98,Marleau98}, to fit each galaxy light distribution by
511: adopting a simple \citet{Sersic68} profile of the form:
512: \begin{equation} \label{eq:sersic}
513: I(r)=I_{e_{n}}\cdot10^{-b_n[(r/R_{e,n})^{1/n}-1]},
514: \end{equation}
515: where $b_n = 1.99 n -0.33$ \citep{Cap89}, and $R_{e,n}$ is the
516: effective radius (i.e., the projected radius enclosing half of the
517: light). The classical de Vaucouleurs profile thus simply corresponds
518: to a S\'ersic index $n=4$ and $b_n=7.67$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:sersic}. In
519: this work, we allow $n$ to span the range between 0 and 5.
520:
521: GIM2D performs a profile fit by deconvolving the data with the point
522: spread function. We model PSFs with analytic functions from visually
523: selected stars in the surrounding ($30'' \times 30''$) region of each
524: galaxy. We model a different PSF for each region in order to account
525: of PSF variations with the position in the field. A 2D radial
526: multi-gaussian function has been fitted simultaneously to tens of
527: selected stars around the galaxies of our sample with outputs being
528: stacked together to create a single PSF image for each region. The
529: reader is referred to \citet{Rettura06} for more details on our method
530: for modeling galaxy PSFs and SB profiles from {\it HST}/ACS
531: images. Here we also note that using PSF constructed with distortion-corrected Tiny Tim \citep{Krist95} models results in negligible differences (see, e.g., \citet{vdW05}, \citet{Treu05}).
532:
533:
534: The result of the bidimensional fit is the semi-major axis $a_{e}$ of
535: the projected elliptical isophote containing half of the total light,
536: the axis ratio $b/a$ and the S\'ersic index $n$, which we have left as
537: free parameters. The effective radius is computed from $R_e = a_e
538: \sqrt{b/a}$. The average surface brightness within the effective
539: radius (in mag/arcsec$^2$) is obtained from the absolute magnitude M:
540: \begin{equation} \label{eq:mu_e}
541: \langle\mu\rangle_e = M + 5logR_e + 38.567,
542: \end{equation}
543: with $R_e$ in kiloparsec. In order to obtain the morphological
544: parameters in the rest-frame $B$-band, which is customary in
545: morphological studies, we have used the {\it HST}/ACS images taken
546: with the F850LP filter, since these are very close to the $B$-band at
547: the redshift of our galaxies for both the cluster and the field
548: samples.
549:
550: \subsection{Derivation of stellar masses and star-formation weighted ages}
551:
552: %% The displaymath environment will produce the same sort of equation as
553: %% the equation environment, except that the equation will not be numbered
554: %% by LaTeX.
555:
556: Adopting a similar approach to \citet{Rettura06}, we derive stellar
557: masses and ages for each galaxy in our samples using multi-wavelength
558: PSF-matched aperture photometry from 8 and 9 passbands for the CDFS and
559: CL1252 fields respectively, from observed $B$-band to observed $4.5 \mu
560: m$. For each galaxy, we compare the observed SED with a set of
561: composite stellar populations (hereafter, CSP) templates computed with
562: models built with \citet{BC03} models, assuming solar metallicity,
563: \citet{Salpeter55} Initial Mass Function (hereafter, IMF) and dust-free
564: models. In \citet{Rettura06} we did investigate the effect of dust
565: extinction on the best-fit stellar masses by including a fourth free
566: parameter, $0.0< E(B-V)< 0.4$, following the \citet{Cardelli89}
567: prescription. By performing the fit on 28 ETG at $z \sim 1$, we
568: found that in $ \sim 40\%$ of the cases $E(B-V)=0$ gives the best
569: fit. In the remaining cases, masses which are lower by $0.2 \pm 0.1$
570: dex are found, with corresponding $E(B-V) \leq 0.2$. This test
571: supports the validity of the dust-free model assumption.
572:
573: For our CSP models, we assume the following grid of
574: exponentially-declining star formation history (SFH) scenarios, $\Psi
575: (T-t^{'}, \tau)$:
576:
577: \begin{equation} \label{eq:sfhs}
578: \Psi (T-t^{'}, \tau) = e^{-\frac{T-t^{'}}{\tau}} \cdot \frac{M_{\odot}}{yr},
579: \end{equation}
580:
581: where $0.05 \leq \tau \leq 5$ Gyr, $T$ is the cosmic time and
582: $(T-t^{'})$ is the age\footnote{The range of acceptable
583: ages for a given galaxy has been limited by the age of the universe
584: at its observed redshift.} of the stellar population model formed at
585: time $t^{'}$ at a SFR, $\Psi(t^{'})$.
586:
587: In determining galaxy model ages, masses and star formation histories
588: from SED fitting, is important to understand how much our estimates
589: could possibly be affected by dust extinction, and
590: ``age-metallicity''\footnote{We emply the working
591: assumption that the most-massive ETG have all solar metallicities.}
592: and ``age-SFH'' degeneracies.
593:
594: Galaxies could appear redder as a result of any of, a shorter $\tau$ ,
595: a larger extinction, or an older age, would all transform a galaxy
596: spectrum into a redder one. This effect is simply illustrated in the
597: top panel of Fig.~\ref{colmod}. We show the $i_{775}-K_{s}$ vs.
598: $v_{606}-i_{775}$ color-color plot of BC03 CSP models at z=1.24
599: superimposed on our CDFS ETG sample observed colors. The squares show
600: the various $\tau$ models predictions. The grids are drawn for seven
601: different $\tau$ and five model ages (2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4 Gyrs): the
602: colored lines represent iso-metallicity colors of solar metallicity,
603: $Z_{\odot}$. It is evident from this figure that it might become very
604: hard to distinguish different model parameters with SED fitting
605: studies based on rest-frame optical and infrared photometry only
606: (i.e., $\lambda_{rest} >$ 2700 \AA). However, as we show in
607: Fig.~\ref{sed_model}, the use of information coming from the
608: rest-frame UV is crucial to distinguish the different parameters of
609: the stellar population modeling (e.g. ages and $\tau$). As we
610: demonstrate in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{colmod}, by including
611: available UV rest-frame photometry in the SED fits ($B$-band
612: observed-frame\footnote{corresponding to $\sim$ 2000 \AA \mbox{} at
613: $z=1.24$}) we are able to break the ``age-SFH degeneracy''. Note
614: that the rest-frame UV remains also largely unaffected by the
615: ``age-metallicity'' degeneracy, which plagues optical studies
616: \citep{Worthey94}. Hence the extensive panchromatic method we use
617: maintains its age-sensitivity across a large range of masses, ages and
618: $\tau$, providing more reliable estimates of these parameters compared
619: to those obtained using optical-to-infrared studies.
620:
621: To account for the average age of the bulk of the stars in a galaxy,
622: we refer throughout this paper to {\it star-formation weighted} ages,
623: $\overline t$, defined as:
624:
625: \begin{equation} \label{eq:age2}
626: \overline t(T-t^{'}, \tau) \equiv \frac{\int_{0}^{T} (T-t^{'}) \Psi(T-t^{'}, \tau) dt^{'}}{\int_{0}^{T} \Psi(T-t^{'}, \tau) dt^{'}} .
627: \end{equation}
628: Assuming $\Psi(T-t^{'}, \tau)$ as in Eq.~\ref{eq:sfhs} we obtain,
629: \begin{equation} \label{eq:age}
630: \overline t = \tau \cdot e^{-\frac{T-t^{'}}{\tau}} + (T-t^{'}) + \tau.
631: \end{equation}
632:
633: By comparing each observed SED with these atlases of synthetic
634: spectra, we construct a 3D $\chi^{2}$ space spanning a wide range of
635: star formation histories, model ages and masses. The galaxy mass in
636: stars $M_{*}$, the $\tau$ and the inferred $\overline t$ of the models
637: giving the lowest $\chi^2$ are taken as the best-fit estimates of the
638: galaxy stellar mass, age, and SFH timescale.
639: %The errors on the ages
640: %and the masses are estimated as in \citet{Rettura06}, to which we
641: %refer the reader for more details. Here we remind that
642: We note that this
643: procedure results in typical errors for galaxy ages of $\sim 0.5$Gyr,
644: and for $\tau$ of $\sim 0.2Gyr$. Typical uncertainties on the mass
645: determination are about $\sim 40\%$ (i.e., $0.15$ dex) \citep{Rettura06}.
646:
647: The reliability of spectrum synthesis models at $\lambda_{obs} \sim
648: 2\mu m$ has long been debated (\citet{Maraston98} and references
649: therein). In the rest-frame NIR regime, in early stages of the galaxy
650: evolution, a short-duration thermally pulsating (TP-) AGB phase is
651: known to be relevant. In \citet{Rettura06} we have shown that
652: PEGASE.2 \citep{Fioc97}, BC03, and Maraston models \citep[hereafter
653: M05;][]{Maraston05} yield consistent stellar masses (within typical
654: errors of $40 \%$) for z$\sim 1$ ETGs. Therefore we do not expect our
655: stellar mass estimates to much depend on the actual stellar population
656: synthesis model adopted. On the other hand, in \S 4.2 we discuss the
657: effect on the galaxy ages of the use of other models such as M05.
658:
659: In Fig.~\ref{UMB_mass} we plot the stellar mass versus $U-B$
660: rest-frame color diagram of the mass-selected samples of CL1252
661: cluster early- (filled red circles) and late-type (red stars) galaxies
662: as well as of CDFS field early- (filled blue circles) and late-type
663: (blue stars) galaxies. The cluster ETG red sequence is evident, as
664: well as the larger scatter in color of the field ETG around that
665: sequence.
666:
667: In Fig.~\ref{BMV_mass_theory} a similar diagram is compared
668: with the predictions of the \citet{Menci08} semi-analytical models for
669: galaxies in clusters (defined as host Dark Matter haloes with $M >
670: 10^{14} M_{\odot}$); the color code represents the abundance,
671: normalized to the maximum value, of galaxies in a given $mass-(B-V)$ bin.
672:
673: We note that the color and scatter of the sequence predicted by the
674: models indicate that the existence of ETG confined to a narrow CMR
675: by $z\approx 1.2$ is indeed consistent with predictions of
676: hierarchical models including AGN feedback. However, the latter still
677: yield a somewhat flatter slope of the CMR and an excess of red,
678: low-mass galaxies. These discrepancies constitute a
679: common feature of all hierarchical models, due to the following
680: physical processes: i) the biasing effect, causing low-mass galaxies
681: residing in high-density environment to collapse earlier; ii) the
682: starbursts, present mainly at high-redshifts in biased density
683: environments (like those originating the clusters), triggering early
684: star formation at $z\gtrsim 2$; iii) the ''strangulation'' effect,
685: namely, the stripping of gas in galaxies with shallow potential wells
686: (such gas is included in the intra-cluster medium). In fact, in
687: hierarchical models, low-mass galaxies are the main cause of the
688: larger fraction of red objects characterizing the galaxy population in
689: high-density environments.
690:
691: \section{Results and Discussion}
692:
693: \subsection{The dependence of ETG scaling relations on environment}
694:
695: The FP is known to be a powerful tool for studying the evolution of
696: ETGs \citep{Djorgo87}. In as similar way to the small scatter of the
697: color-magnitude relation \citep{Bower92}, the tightness of the FP
698: \citep{Jorgensen96, Bernardi03} constrains the homogeneity of the
699: ETG stellar population. Because of its dependence on
700: galaxy luminosity, the FP is sensitive to recent star formation
701: episodes.
702:
703: One of its projections shows a tight relation between the effective
704: radius, $R_{e}$, and the mean surface brightness $<\mu_{e}>$ measured
705: inside $R_{e}$, also known as the \citet[][hereafter KR]{kor77}
706: relation:
707: \begin{equation}
708: <\mu_{e}> = \alpha + \beta log (R_{e}) ,
709: \end{equation}
710: where the slope $\beta \simeq 3$ is found to be costant out to
711: $z\simeq 0.65$ \citep{LaBarbera03}, while the value of $\alpha$
712: depends on the photometric band adopted to derive the structural
713: parameters. Here we adopt the KR as one of the tools for
714: investigating the structural properties of ETG with the aim of
715: understanding the role of the environment in shaping ETG of similar
716: masses and optical-to-infrared colors.
717:
718: In Fig.~\ref{Kormendy}, we find very similar KRs for the two samples.
719: Both the derived zero points and slopes are consistent within the
720: errors. These relations show that at the effective radius, large
721: (massive) galaxies are fainter than small galaxies regardless of the
722: environment. This in turn indicates that large galaxies are less
723: dense than small galaxies in both the cluster and field at $z \simeq
724: 1.2$. For comparison, we overplot the KR at $z \sim 0$ found by
725: \citet{LaBarbera03} (dotted-dashed red line), K-corrected to our
726: rest-frame $B$-band. Our galaxies are brighter by 1-2mag than at low
727: redshift, a discrepancy that other studies at $1.0 \lesssim z \lesssim
728: 1.4$ have also found difficult to explain with the assumption that
729: galaxies undergo only a pure luminosity evolution with redshift (e.g.,
730: \citet{Longhetti07}). In fact, our galaxies show an evolution of
731: $<\mu_{e}>$ which exceeds $\sim 2$ times the one expected in the case
732: of pure luminosity evolution ($\sim 1$mag). According to
733: Eq.~\ref{eq:mu_e}, the other quantity affecting $<\mu_{e}>$ is the
734: effective radius. Therefore to recover this discrepancy we can assume
735: that, as a function of redshift, ETG undergo a size evolution as well:
736: the effective radius of ETG should increase by at least factor $\sim
737: 1.5$ from z$\simeq 1.2$ to z$\sim 0$ both in the cluster and in the
738: field environment.
739:
740: Recent studies of the dependence on environment of the size vs.
741: stellar mass relation \citep{Trujillo04, McIntosh05, Trujillo06,
742: Trujillo07} found that the bulk of galaxies with comparable stellar
743: masses to ours were at least a factor 2 smaller at higher redshifts
744: than locally. This is qualitatively consistent with the observed
745: trend in our data, (see Fig.~\ref{mass_size}) when the sizes and
746: masses our samples are compared with the local relation for ETG in
747: SDSS \citep[dotted-dashed red line;][]{Shen03}. We find no-dependence
748: on the environment of the $R_{e}$ vs. $M_{*}$ relation, implying that
749: cluster and field ETGs must undergo similar luminosity and size
750: evolution to match the typical values found for the ETG at lower
751: redshifts. To explain how compact galaxies observed at $z>1$ could
752: possibly end-up on the local relation, a possible evolutionary
753: mechanism that grows stellar mass and size has been suggested: a
754: dissipationless (``dry'') merging of gas-poor systems (e.g.,
755: \citep{Ciotti01, Nipoti03, Khochfar03, Boylan06} that is efficient in
756: increasing the size of the objects, while remaining inefficient at
757: forming new stars.
758:
759: In the local universe, the SFR per stellar mass (specific
760: star-formation rate, SSFR) correlates strongly with galaxy
761: concentration, effective radius and the average surface stellar mass
762: density \citep[$\sigma_{50}$;][]{Kauffmann03,Brinchmann04}. A striking
763: similarity of cluster and field galaxies at $z \simeq$1.2 is again
764: shown in Fig.~\ref{andrew} where we plot, $\sigma_{50}$,
765: \begin{equation}
766: \sigma_{50} = \frac{0.5 M_{\star}}{\pi R_{e}^{2}} ,
767: \end{equation}
768: versus the stellar mass, and compare them with similar data in the
769: literature drawn from \citet{Zirm07} at $z \sim 2.5$. Quiescent
770: Distant Red Galaxies (qDRGs) are drawn as red ellipses, star-forming
771: DRGs (sDRGs) are drawn as open red stars, while blue stars indicates
772: Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs) from the same work. While some of our
773: galaxies are almost as dense as the \citet{Zirm07} and \citep{Toft07}
774: quiescent distant red galaxies (qDRGs), both our samples (filled
775: circles) overlap the region occupied by other $1.0 \lesssim z \lesssim
776: 1.5$ galaxy samples \citep{Trujillo06, Daddi05, vdW06, Rettura06}
777: (open red squares, open red circles, open black circles, open black
778: squares, respectively). As a comparison we also overplot the local
779: relation for ETG in SDSS (red dotted-dashed line) calculated from the
780: mass-size relation of \citet{Shen03}. It is very clear in
781: Fig.~\ref{andrew} that the bulk of our galaxies in both samples have
782: much larger densities that their local counterparts. To account for
783: this effect in the context of a plausible formation scenario,
784: semi-analytical modeling (e.g. \citet{Khochfar06}) suggests that ETGs
785: formed in gas-rich mergers can result in very dense stellar cores, as
786: the gas is driven to the center of this ``wet'' (dissipative) merger
787: where it very efficiently produces massive starburts. Galaxies that
788: merge in the early universe are likely to be gas-rich. Consequently
789: the dense nature of this objects could be the result of much denser
790: conditions of the universe at the time of their formation. We note
791: that our finding that there is no dependence on the environment of the
792: $\sigma_{50}$ vs, $M_{*}$ relation at z$\simeq 1.2$ can provide an
793: important datum for models of galaxy formation.
794:
795: %Figure Sigma vs. Radius
796: %We also find a trend for $z\simeq$1.2 cluster galaxies of increasing
797: %$\sigma_{50}$ as a function of the increasing distance from the center
798: %of the cluster (see Fig.~\ref{distanza}). We can interpret this as a
799: %direct consequence of the . This effect causes the more massive ETGs
800: %to be more likely found in the center of the clusters than in their
801: %outskirts. According to the KR, at the effective radii, these large
802: %galaxies will be fainter than the smaller, more compact, galaxies that
803: %live in the outer regions. Therefore less dense galaxies are more
804: %likely to be found in cluster cores , with the average surface mass
805: %density thus increasing with the projected distance from the center.
806:
807: \subsection{The dependence of ETG ages and star formation histories
808: on their environment}
809:
810: As we apply the method described in section \S 3.2, we are able to
811: directly compare the distribution of star-formation weighted ages in
812: the field and in the cluster. As shown in the top panel of
813: Fig.~\ref{timing}, we find the overall relative distribution of
814: cluster and field ETG ages to be very similar. This result implies no
815: significant delay in relative formation epochs is found for ETG in
816: either environments. We find that $\sim 80$\% of massive ETGs have
817: ages in the range $3.5 \pm 1.0$ Gyr in both cluster and field.
818:
819: To investigate the dependence of this result on the
820: actual stellar population synthesis code adopted, we compare our
821: current results (based on BC03 models) with those obtained with a set
822: of similar dust-free CSPs templates built with \citet{Maraston05}
823: models, adopting the same exponentially-declining SFHs of
824: Eq.~\ref{eq:sfhs}, and assuming solar metallicity and
825: \citet{Salpeter55} IMF. The result of the analysis based on M05
826: models is shown in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{timing} where we
827: still find the cluster and field relative age distributions to be very
828: similar, despite the fact that the contribution of the TP-AGB stars in
829: these models are implemented in a different way. However, here we
830: find that $\sim 60$\% of galaxies have ages in the range $3.5 \pm 1.0$
831: Gyr; M05 models favor slightly younger ages ($\sim1-2$ Gyrs) for $\sim
832: $20\% of ETG in both environments. This effect can be explained by
833: the fact that, at about 1 Gyr, M05 models account for a larger amount
834: of 2 $\mu m$ flux than BC03 models of the same age, resulting in
835: significantly redder color at younger ages, thus can favor $\overline t
836: \sim$ 1-2Gyrs best-fits in a few cases.
837:
838: %implementing a different treatment of,
839: %Hence we note that estimates of the star-formation weighted
840: %ages of $z \sim 1$ ETGs, if based on such an extended wavelength
841: %baseline (8-9 bands from rest-frame FUV to NIR), are not largely
842: %affected by stellar population synthesis model discrepancies.
843:
844: To summarize, we find that, regardless of the actual stellar
845: population synthesis code adopted, cluster galaxies ages have the same
846: relative distribution as their field contemporaries: no significant
847: delay in their formation epochs is found, within the errors ($\sim
848: 0.5Gyr$). This result is at variance with some versions of the
849: hierarchical model of galaxy formation and evolution
850: \citep{Diaferio01, Delucia06} and with fossil record studies
851: \citep{Thomas05, Clemens06}, but in remarkably good agreement with the
852: ones derived by \citet{vandokkum07} and \citet{dSA06} from the
853: evolution of the $M/L$ ratio. It should be noted that similar results
854: are found by other works using independent methods and data-sets.
855:
856: In the top-left panel of Fig.~\ref{quartetto} we plot for both samples
857: each galaxy age, $\overline t$, as a function of stellar mass. We
858: note that the age of ETG increases with galaxy mass in all
859: environments, which is in agreement with the so--called {\it
860: downsizing} scenario of galaxy formation \citep{Cowie96}. This
861: effect can also be seen in the the top-right panel of
862: Fig.~\ref{quartetto}, where we plot our galaxies' lookback time to
863: formation as a function of their stellar mass, in both environments.
864: Our result is in agreement with the one obtained with an
865: independent method and data-set by \citep{dSA06} and based on z$\sim
866: 1$ ETG ages estimated from the FP parameters (see their Fig. 3).
867:
868: Despite of the fact that cluster and field galaxy formation epochs are
869: found to be similar, it could still be possible that the timescales of
870: their SFH are significantly different. Firstly, the data show that
871: the distribution of cluster and field optical colors is significantly
872: different. As a function of the stellar mass, cluster galaxies are
873: found to lie on a very tight red-sequence, while those in the field
874: populate the color-sequence with a larger scatter
875: (Fig.~\ref{UMB_mass}). Secondly, in \citet{Gobat08} we find that the
876: averaged spectrum of the cluster galaxies has a more pronounced
877: 4000\AA \mbox{} break than that of the field sample.
878:
879: Both these pieces of observational evidence find a natural explanation
880: in the framework of our modeling. As shown in the bottom-right panel
881: of Fig.~\ref{quartetto}, as a function of stellar mass, we find that
882: field ETG span a larger range of timescales than their cluster
883: contemporaries, which are formed with the shortest $\tau$ at any given
884: mass. According to our models, cluster ETG are found to have
885: experienced more similar star-formation histories. As shown in the
886: bottom-left panel of Fig.~\ref{quartetto}, cluster ETG form a
887: color-age sequence with much smaller scatter than the field ones.
888:
889: As discussed in \S 2.1, we recall that our field sample is more
890: deficient in lower mass objects than the cluster sample because of the
891: different depths of spectroscopic observations. However, even
892: if the field sample were corrected for completeness, this would
893: likely result in a larger fraction of field ETG at low mass,
894: which are the ones that we found with longer $\tau$. Hence
895: this would amplify the difference between the typical timescales of
896: the two samples, and so not affect our conclusions.
897:
898: \subsection{The dependence of ETG FUV magnitudes on their environment}
899:
900: The rest-frame FUV ($\sim \lambda ~ 1700 \AA$) SED is a crucial range
901: where hot ($> 9000 K$), massive ($M > 2 M_{\odot}$), short-living ($<
902: 1Gyr$) stars emit most of their light. Thus it is a wavelength domain
903: which is very sesnsitive to current or recent star formation. Most of
904: the light from ETG is emitted in the optical and the NIR rest-frame.
905: However, the FUV can be used as a good tracer of the residual current
906: star-formation and to trace back, within the last Gyr, the most
907: recent episode of star-formation. About 100Myr after star formation
908: ceases, an ETG spectrum becomes dimmer and redder. Therefore, the
909: fainter the rest-frame UV emission is, the earlier the
910: star formation must have stopped. Over time, the galaxy spectrum
911: fades and slowly reddens as the 4000 $\AA$ break becomes more
912: pronounced. Here we have used the {\it VLT}/VIMOS $U$-band
913: observations described in \S 2.2 to empirically constrain the
914: dependence on the environment of the most recent star formation
915: processes in z$\simeq 1.2$ ETGs.
916:
917: However, when analyzing UV rest-frame fluxes of massive ETG it is
918: important to recall that core helium burning stars on the horizontal
919: branch (HB) are known to produce a ``UV upturn'' feature \citep{Yi97,
920: Yi99}. This effect can, in principle, complicate the
921: disentanglement of the contributions to the UV spectrum of the evolved
922: and young stellar populations. However, the onset of the HB typically
923: takes 9 Gyr, meaning that, by z=1.2 (when the Universe is only 5Gyr
924: old), not enough cosmic time has elapsed for this population of stars
925: to appear. Hence the UV flux seen in our sample ETG must originate
926: only from young stars.
927:
928: In Fig.~\ref{uband} we show $U$-band magnitudes (1'' radius aperture;
929: rest-frame $\sim 1700 \AA $) as a function of stellar mass for the
930: ETG detected in the field (filled blue circles). Solid lines
931: represent the 1$\sigma$ limit magnitudes of both data-sets (in blue
932: for CDFS, in red CL1252). Dashed lines represent the 3$\sigma$
933: limits. As already pointed out in \S2.2, the combined effect of
934: shorter total exposure times and higher galactic extinction at the
935: location of CL1252, directly translates into a $\sim 1mag$ deeper
936: $U$-band photometry for the CDFS.
937: % The 3-$\sigma$ depth for CDFS is
938: %$U$=28.27, while the corresponding depth for CL1252 is $U$=27.3.
939:
940: A large fraction (75 \%) of field ETG are ($>3 \sigma$)
941: detected in the deep CDFS images. The observed magnitude of the
942: median stack of these detections is $U$=27.46 mag (blue dotted line of
943: Fig.~\ref{uband}), corresponding to a SFR=0.47 $M_{\odot}/yr$
944: \citep{Sawicki06}. An image of the median $U$-band stack of the ETGs
945: detected in the field, is displayed in the bottom-left corner of
946: Fig.~\ref{uband}.
947:
948: Since none of the CL1252 ETG is actually detected in our $U$-band data,
949: we use their median stack, shown in the middle of Fig.~\ref{uband}, to
950: provide a robust upper limit of $U>27.3$ mag for the CL1252 early-type
951: population, which corresponds to SFR$< 0.55 M_{\odot}/yr$.
952:
953: We note that the non detection of the CL1252 ETG cannot only be
954: attributed to the shallower $U$-band data for the cluster. To prove
955: this we have simulated how the CDFS detected ETG would appear in the
956: 1252 data (more details can be found in \citet{Nonino08}). We
957: randomly placed the 20 $U$-band detected CDFS ETG (0.4 mag dimmed to
958: match the relative difference in galactic extinction) in the CL1252
959: maximally exposed region, avoiding objects detected in the $U$-band,
960: and repeated this step 30 times. Hence we generated 32 median stacks
961: of 18 simulated galaxies each, picking up at random amongst the
962: cutouts. Aperture photometry (1'' radius) on these simulated {\it
963: CDFS@1252} stacks results in a median value of $U$=27.8 mag which is
964: in agreeement with the dimmed inputs of the simulations.
965: %which corresponds to a SFR=$0.34 M_{\odot}/yr$.
966: In the bottom-right corner of Fig.~\ref{uband} we show one of these
967: stacks, which would be clearly detected in 1252. Comparing this last
968: value to the upper limit we measured in the cluster data, we can state
969: with confidence that cluster ETG are intrinsically fainter by at least
970: 0.5 mag in the observed $U$-band than their field contemporaries of
971: similar mass and optical-to-infrared colors.
972:
973: This observational evidence corroborates the results of our stellar
974: population synthesis analysis described in the previous subsection.
975: In our proposed scenario, a generally shorter {\it timescale} of the
976: star formation process among the cluster galaxy population would
977: naturally result in a generally fainter observed $U$-band magnitudes
978: compared to the field population at z$\simeq 1.2$.
979:
980: \section {Conclusions}
981:
982: We have obtained photometric parameters: PSF-matched aperture
983: magnitudes in 9 bands from FUV to NIR rest-frame; and morphological
984: information: effective radius, average surface brightness, S\'ersic
985: index and average surface stellar mass density for mass-selected samples
986: of 45 cluster and field massive ($M > 5 \cdot 10^{10} M_{\odot}$)
987: early-type galaxies at z$\simeq 1.2$. Apart from a lower level of
988: spectroscopic completeness for the least massive field galaxies, that
989: we find not to affect our conclusions, our sample has the advantage
990: of being photometrically complete at our mass limit and having galaxy
991: types assigned spectroscopically.
992:
993: For both samples we also have derived stellar masses, ages, and star
994: formation histories, parameterized as timescales, $\tau$, of
995: exponentially declining CSP model templates built with BC03 and M05
996: models.
997:
998: From the data analysis performed in this work, we have obtained the
999: following results:
1000:
1001: \begin{itemize}
1002: \item{} Cluster and field ETG lie on a similarly tight Kormendy
1003: Relation at z$\simeq 1.2$. When compared to the local relation, our
1004: galaxies are 1-2mag brighter than at z$\sim$0, similar to what has
1005: been found by other studies at $z \sim 1.0$ in the field (e.g.,
1006: \citep{Longhetti07}). The evolution of the KR cannot be explained
1007: as pure luminosity evolution and we conclude that ETG must undergo a
1008: similar size evolution in both environments.
1009: \end{itemize}
1010:
1011: \begin{itemize}
1012: \item{} We find no dependence on the environment of the {\it size vs.
1013: stellar mass} relation,or for the {\it average surface
1014: stellar mass density vs. stellar mass} relation at z$\simeq 1.2$.
1015: As a comparison we constrast both of them with the local relations for
1016: ETG found in SDSS. We find that the bulk of our ETG in both
1017: samples have much smaller sizes (and larger densities) than their
1018: local counterparts. Our data therefore indicate a strong size
1019: evolution for both the cluster and field galaxies.
1020: \end{itemize}
1021:
1022: \begin{itemize}
1023: \item{} We find no significant delay in the formation epochs of
1024: massive ETG observed in the cluster and in the field at z$\simeq
1025: 1.2$. This result is true robust for models that treat the
1026: contribution of the TP-AGB stars in very differnt way (i.e., BC03 or
1027: M05). However our result is at variance with some versions of
1028: hierarchical models \citep{Diaferio01, Delucia06} and with fossil
1029: record studies \citep{Thomas05, Clemens06}, but is in remarkably
1030: good agreement with those obtained from the evolution of the $M/L$
1031: ratio.
1032: \end{itemize}
1033:
1034: \begin{itemize}
1035: \item{} The age of ETG increase with galaxy mass in all environments,
1036: which is in agreement with the {\it downsizing} scenario. The site
1037: of active star formation must have shifted from the most massive to
1038: the less massive galaxies as a function of the cosmic time. The
1039: formation epochs of ETG only depends on their mass and not on the
1040: environment they live in.
1041: \end{itemize}
1042:
1043: \begin{itemize}
1044: \item{} We present new deep $U$-band observations in the rest-frame
1045: FUV ($\sim \lambda ~ 1700 \AA$) for both samples ETG. We detected
1046: 75 \% of the field ETG at z$\simeq 1.2$. The observed magnitude of
1047: the median stack of these detections is $U$=27.46 mag, which
1048: corresponds to a SFR=0.47 $M_{\odot}/yr$.
1049: \end{itemize}
1050:
1051: \begin{itemize}
1052: \item{} None of the CL1252 ETG was actually detected in our shallower
1053: (by $\sim$ 1 mag) $U$-band data, but we used their median stack image to
1054: provide a robust upper limit of $U>27.3$ mag for the CL1252 early-type
1055: population, which corresponds to SFR$< 0.55 M_{\odot}/yr$.
1056: \end{itemize}
1057:
1058: \begin{itemize}
1059: \item{} Using simulations, we find that the median
1060: stack of the CDFS ETG could be clearly detected in the actual CL1252
1061: data at $U$=27.8 mag. Comparing this value to
1062: the upper limit we measured from the cluster data, we can firmly
1063: state that cluster ETG are intrinsically fainter by at least 0.5
1064: mag in the $U$-band than their field contemporaries of similar mass
1065: and optical-to-infrared colors. This observational
1066: evidence implies that the last episode of star formation must have
1067: happened more recently in the field than in the cluster.
1068: \end{itemize}
1069:
1070: \begin{itemize}
1071: \item{} The data also show two other compelling pieces of evidence that
1072: cluster and field SFHs are
1073: significantly different: 1) as a function of the stellar mass,
1074: cluster galaxies are found to lie on a very tight color sequence
1075: while the field galaxies populate it with a larger scatter; 2) in a
1076: companion paper based on the same data-set, \citet{Gobat08} find
1077: that the averaged spectrum of the cluster galaxies has a more
1078: pronounced 4000\AA \mbox{} break than that of the field sample.
1079: \end{itemize}
1080:
1081: \begin{itemize}
1082: \item{} Finally we have been also able to explain both
1083: these pieces of observational evidences in the framework of our stellar
1084: population modeling. Field ETG best-fit models span a larger range
1085: of timescales than their cluster contemporaries, which are formed
1086: with the shortest $\tau$ at any given mass.
1087: \end{itemize}
1088:
1089: While cluster and field galaxy observed at z$\simeq 1.2$
1090: form at approximately the same time, a high density environment is
1091: able to trigger more rapid and homogenous SFHs for the ETGs, limiting
1092: the range of possible star-formation processes. In low density
1093: environments, this effect must rapidly fade as ETG undergo a
1094: much broader range of possible star formation histories. We also note
1095: that this scenario is in very good agreement with the one proposed by
1096: \citet{Menci08}, based on the latest rendition of semi-analytic
1097: models.
1098:
1099: \acknowledgments A.R. is grateful to Roderik Overzier, Arjen van der
1100: Wel, and Loredana Vetere for useful discussions. A.R. is also
1101: grateful to Andrew Zirm for providing the data used in
1102: Fig.~\ref{andrew}.
1103:
1104: \email{aastex-help@aas.org}.
1105:
1106: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
1107: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
1108: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
1109: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
1110: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
1111: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
1112: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
1113: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
1114:
1115: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
1116: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
1117: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
1118: %% copy editing. Individual instruments or configurations can be provided
1119: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
1120:
1121: %{\it Facilities:} \facility{Nickel}, \facility{HST (STIS)}, \facility{CXO (ASIS)}.
1122:
1123: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
1124: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
1125: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
1126:
1127: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
1128: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
1129: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
1130:
1131:
1132: \begin{thebibliography}{88}
1133: %\expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1134:
1135: \bibitem[Adelberger et al.(2005)]{Adelberger05} Adelberger, K.~L.,
1136: Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., Shapley, A.~E., Reddy, N.~A.,
1137: \& Erb, D.~K.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 697
1138:
1139: \bibitem[Balogh et al.(2002)]{Balogh02} Balogh, M.~L., et al.\
1140: 2002, \apj, 566, 123
1141:
1142:
1143: \bibitem[Baugh et al.(1996)]{Baugh96} Baugh, C.~M., Cole, S.,
1144: \& Frenk, C.~S.\ 1996, \mnras, 283, 1361
1145:
1146: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2003)]{Bell03} Bell, E.~F., McIntosh,
1147: D.~H., Katz, N., \& Weinberg, M.~D.\ 2003, \apjs, 149, 289
1148:
1149: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2005)]{Bell05} Bell, E.~F., et al.\ 2005,
1150: \apj, 625, 23
1151:
1152: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(1998)]{Bernardi98} Bernardi, M., Renzini,
1153: A., da Costa, L.~N., Wegner, G., Alonso, M.~V., Pellegrini, P.~S.,
1154: Rit{\'e}, C., \& Willmer, C.~N.~A.\ 1998, \apjl, 508, L143
1155:
1156: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003)]{Bernardi03} Bernardi, M., et al.\
1157: 2003, \aj, 125, 1866
1158:
1159: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2006)]{Bernardi06} Bernardi, M., Nichol, R.~C., Sheth, R.~K., Miller, C.~J., \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1288
1160:
1161: \bibitem[{{Blakeslee} {et~al.}(2003){Blakeslee}, {Franx}, {Postman}, {Rosati},
1162: {Holden}, {Illingworth}, {Ford}, {Cross}, {Gronwall}, {Ben{\'{\i}}tez},
1163: {Bouwens}, {Broadhurst}, {Clampin}, {Demarco}, {Golimowski}, {Hartig},
1164: {Infante}, {Martel}, {Miley}, {Menanteau}, {Meurer}, {Sirianni}, \&
1165: {White}}]{Blake03}
1166: {Blakeslee}, J.~P., {Franx}, M., {Postman}, M., {et~al.} 2003, \apjl, 596, L143
1167:
1168:
1169: \bibitem[Blakeslee et al.(2006)]{Blakeslee06} Blakeslee, J.~P., et
1170: al.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 30
1171:
1172: \bibitem[Bower et al.(1992)]{Bower92} Bower, R.~G., Lucey,
1173: J.~R., \& Ellis, R.~S.\ 1992, \mnras, 254, 601
1174:
1175: \bibitem[Boylan-Kolchin et al.(2006)]{Boylan06} Boylan-Kolchin,
1176: M., Ma, C.-P., \& Quataert, E.\ 2006, \mnras, 369, 1081
1177:
1178: \bibitem[Brinchmann et al.(2004)]{Brinchmann04} Brinchmann, J.,
1179: Charlot, S., White, S.~D.~M., Tremonti, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T.,
1180: \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, 1151
1181:
1182: \bibitem[{{Bruzual} \& {Charlot}(2003)}]{BC03}
1183: {Bruzual}, G. \& {Charlot}, S. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
1184:
1185: \bibitem[{{Capaccioli}(1989)}]{Cap89}
1186: {Capaccioli}, M. 1989, in World of Galaxies (Le Monde des Galaxies), 208--227
1187:
1188: \bibitem[Cardelli et al.(1988)]{Cardelli88} Cardelli, J.~A.,
1189: Clayton, G.~C., \& Mathis, J.~S.\ 1988, \apjl, 329, L33
1190:
1191: \bibitem[{{Cardelli} {et~al.}(1989){Cardelli}, {Clayton}, \&
1192: {Mathis}}]{Cardelli89}
1193: {Cardelli}, J.~A., {Clayton}, G.~C., \& {Mathis}, J.~S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
1194:
1195: \bibitem[{{Cimatti} {et~al.}(2002){Cimatti}, {Pozzetti}, {Mignoli}, {Daddi},
1196: {Menci}, {Poli}, {Fontana}, {Renzini}, {Zamorani}, {Broadhurst}, {Cristiani},
1197: {D'Odorico}, {Giallongo}, \& {Gilmozzi}}]{Cimatti02}
1198: {Cimatti}, A., {Pozzetti}, L., {Mignoli}, M., {et~al.} 2002, \aap, 391, L1
1199:
1200: \bibitem[{{Cimatti} {et~al.}(2004){Cimatti}, {Daddi}, {Renzini}, {Cassata},
1201: {Vanzella}, {Pozzetti}, {Cristiani}, {Fontana}, {Rodighiero}, {Mignoli}, \&
1202: {Zamorani}}]{Cimatti04}
1203: {Cimatti}, A., {Daddi}, E., {Renzini}, A., {et~al.} 2004, \nat, 430, 184
1204:
1205: \bibitem[Ciotti \& van Albada(2001)]{Ciotti01} Ciotti, L., \& van Albada, T.~S.\ 2001, \apjl, 552, L13
1206:
1207: \bibitem[Clemens et al.(2006)]{Clemens06} Clemens, M.~S.,
1208: Bressan, A., Nikolic, B., Alexander, P., Annibali, F.,
1209: \& Rampazzo, R.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 702
1210:
1211: \bibitem[Cowie et al.(1996)]{Cowie96} Cowie, L.~L., Songaila,
1212: A., Hu, E.~M., \& Cohen, J.~G.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 839
1213:
1214: \bibitem[Daddi et al.(2005)]{Daddi05} Daddi, E., et al.\ 2005,
1215: \apj, 626, 680
1216:
1217: \bibitem[De Lucia et al.(2004)]{Delucia04} De Lucia, G.,
1218: Kauffmann, G., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2004, \mnras, 349, 1101
1219:
1220: \bibitem[De Lucia et al.(2006)]{Delucia06} De Lucia, G.,
1221: Springel, V., White, S.~D.~M., Croton, D., \& Kauffmann, G.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 499
1222:
1223: \bibitem[Demarco et al.(2007)]{Demarco07} Demarco, R., et al.\
1224: 2007, \apj, 663, 164
1225:
1226:
1227: \bibitem[Diaferio et al.(2001)]{Diaferio01} Diaferio, A.,
1228: Kauffmann, G., Balogh, M.~L., White, S.~D.~M., Schade, D.,
1229: \& Ellingson, E.\ 2001, \mnras, 323, 999
1230:
1231: \bibitem[De Propris et al.(2007)]{Depropris07} De Propris, R.,
1232: Stanford, S.~A., Eisenhardt, P.~R., Holden, B.~P.,
1233: \& Rosati, P.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 2209
1234:
1235: \bibitem[{{di Serego Alighieri} {et~al.}(2005){di Serego Alighieri}, {Vernet},
1236: {Cimatti}, {Lanzoni}, {Cassata}, {Ciotti}, {Daddi}, {Mignoli}, {Pignatelli},
1237: {Pozzetti}, {Renzini}, {Rettura}, \& {Zamorani}}]{dSA05}
1238: {di Serego Alighieri}, S., {Vernet}, J., {Cimatti}, A., {et~al.} 2005, \aap,
1239: 442, 125
1240:
1241: \bibitem[di Serego Alighieri et al.(2006)]{dSA06} di Serego Alighieri,
1242: S., Lanzoni, B., \& J{\o}rgensen, I.\ 2006, \apjl, 652, L145
1243:
1244: \bibitem[{{Djorgovski} \& {Davis}(1987)}]{Djorgo87}
1245: {Djorgovski}, S. \& {Davis}, M. 1987, \apj, 313, 59
1246:
1247: \bibitem[Dressler et al.(1997)]{Dressler97} Dressler, A., et al.\
1248: 1997, \apj, 490, 577
1249:
1250: \bibitem[{{Fioc} \& {Rocca-Volmerange}(1997)}]{Fioc97}
1251: {Fioc}, M. \& {Rocca-Volmerange}, B. 1997, \aap, 326, 950
1252:
1253: \bibitem[{{Fontana} {et~al.}(2004){Fontana}, {Pozzetti}, {Donnarumma},
1254: {Renzini}, {Cimatti}, {Zamorani}, {Menci}, {Daddi}, {Giallongo}, {Mignoli},
1255: {Perna}, {Salimbeni}, {Saracco}, {Broadhurst}, {Cristiani}, {D'Odorico}, \&
1256: {Gilmozzi}}]{Fontana04}
1257: {Fontana}, A., {Pozzetti}, L., {Donnarumma}, I., {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 424, 23
1258:
1259: \bibitem[Franx et al.(2003)]{Franx03} Franx, M., et al.\ 2003,
1260: \apjl, 587, L79
1261:
1262: \bibitem[{{Gavazzi} {et~al.}(1996){Gavazzi}, {Pierini}, \&
1263: {Boselli}}]{Gavazzi96}
1264: {Gavazzi}, G., {Pierini}, D., \& {Boselli}, A. 1996, \aap, 312, 397
1265:
1266: \bibitem[Gawiser et al.(2006)]{Gawiser06} Gawiser, E., et al.\
1267: 2006, \apjs, 162, 1
1268:
1269: \bibitem[{{Giavalisco} {et~al.}(2004){Giavalisco}, {Ferguson}, {Koekemoer},
1270: {Dickinson}, {Alexander}, {Bauer}, {Bergeron}, {Biagetti}, {Brandt},
1271: {Casertano}, {Cesarsky}, {Chatzichristou}, {Conselice}, {Cristiani}, {Da
1272: Costa}, {Dahlen}, {de Mello}, {Eisenhardt}, {Erben}, {Fall}, {Fassnacht},
1273: {Fosbury}, {Fruchter}, {Gardner}, {Grogin}, {Hook}, {Hornschemeier}, {Idzi},
1274: {Jogee}, {Kretchmer}, {Laidler}, {Lee}, {Livio}, {Lucas}, {Madau},
1275: {Mobasher}, {Moustakas}, {Nonino}, {Padovani}, {Papovich}, {Park},
1276: {Ravindranath}, {Renzini}, {Richardson}, {Riess}, {Rosati}, {Schirmer},
1277: {Schreier}, {Somervile}, {Spinrad}, {Stern}, {Stiavelli}, {Strolger}, {Urry},
1278: {Vandame}, {Williams}, \& {Wolf}}]{Giava04}
1279: {Giavalisco}, M., {Ferguson}, H.~C., {Koekemoer}, A.~M., {et~al.} 2004, \apjl,
1280: 600, L93
1281:
1282: \bibitem[Gobat et al.(2008)]{Gobat08} Gobat, R., Rosati, P., Strazzullo, V., Rettura, A., Demarco, R., \& Nonino, M. \ 2008, \aap, submitted
1283:
1284: \bibitem[Graham
1285: \& Guzm{\'a}n(2003)]{2003AJ....125.2936G} Graham, A.~W., \& Guzm{\'a}n, R.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 2936
1286:
1287: \bibitem[Gunn \& Gott(1972)]{Gunn72} Gunn, J.~E., \& Gott, J.~R.~I.\ 1972, \apj, 176, 1
1288:
1289: \bibitem[Jorgensen et al.(1996)]{Jorgensen96} Jorgensen, I., Franx,
1290: M., \& Kjaergaard, P.\ 1996, \mnras, 280, 167
1291:
1292: \bibitem[J{\o}rgensen et al.(2006)]{Jorgensen06} J{\o}rgensen, I.,
1293: Chiboucas, K., Flint, K., Bergmann, M., Barr, J.,
1294: \& Davies, R.\ 2006, \apjl, 639, L9
1295:
1296: \bibitem[Juneau et al.(2005)]{Juneau05} Juneau, S., et al.\
1297: 2005, \apjl, 619, L135
1298:
1299: \bibitem[Hilton et al.(2007)]{Hilton07} Hilton, M., et al.\
1300: 2007, \apj, 670, 1000
1301:
1302: \bibitem[{{Holden} {et~al.}(2005){Holden}, {van der Wel}, {Franx},
1303: {Illingworth}, {Blakeslee}, {van Dokkum}, {Ford}, {Magee}, {Postman}, {Rix},
1304: \& {Rosati}}]{Hol05}
1305: {Holden}, B.~P., {van der Wel}, A., {Franx}, M., {et~al.} 2005, \apjl, 620, L83
1306:
1307: \bibitem[Kauffmann \& Charlot(1998)]{Kauffmann98} Kauffmann, G., \& Charlot, S.\ 1998, \mnras, 294, 705
1308:
1309: \bibitem[{{Kauffmann} {et~al.}(2003){Kauffmann}, {Heckman}, {White}, {Charlot},
1310: {Tremonti}, {Peng}, {Seibert}, {Brinkmann}, {Nichol}, {SubbaRao}, \&
1311: {York}}]{Kauffmann03}
1312: {Kauffmann}, G., {Heckman}, T.~M., {White}, S.~D.~M., {et~al.} 2003, \mnras,
1313: 341, 54
1314:
1315: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2007)]{Kauffmann07} Kauffmann, G., et
1316: al.\ 2007, \apjs, 173, 357
1317:
1318: \bibitem[Kaviraj et al.(2005)]{Kaviraj05} Kaviraj, S., Devriendt,
1319: J.~E.~G., Ferreras, I., \& Yi, S.~K.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 60
1320:
1321: \bibitem[Kaviraj et al.(2007)]{Kaviraj07} Kaviraj, S., et al.\
1322: 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, arXiv:0709.0806
1323:
1324: \bibitem[Kochanek et al.(2000)]{Kochanek00} Kochanek, C.~S., et
1325: al.\ 2000, \apj, 543, 131
1326:
1327: \bibitem[Khochfar \& Burkert(2003)]{Khochfar03} Khochfar, S., \& Burkert, A.\ 2003, \apjl, 597, L117
1328:
1329: \bibitem[Khochfar
1330: \& Silk(2006)]{Khochfar06} Khochfar, S., \& Silk, J.\ 2006, \apjl, 648, L21
1331:
1332: \bibitem[Kodama
1333: \& Bower(2001)]{Kodama01} Kodama, T., \& Bower, R.~G.\ 2001, \mnras, 321, 18
1334:
1335:
1336: \bibitem[Kodama et al.(2007)]{Kodama07} Kodama, T., Tanaka, I.,
1337: Kajisawa, M., Kurk, J., Venemans, B., De Breuck, C., Vernet, J.,
1338: \& Lidman, C.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 1717
1339:
1340:
1341: \bibitem[Kormendy(1977)]{kor77} Kormendy, J.\ 1977, \apj, 218, 333
1342:
1343: \bibitem[Kriek et al.(2006)]{Kriek06} Kriek, M., et al.\ 2006,
1344: \apj, 645, 44
1345:
1346: \bibitem[Krist(1995)]{Krist95} Krist, J.\ 1995, Astronomical
1347: Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, 77, 349
1348:
1349: \bibitem[Kurk et al.(2004)]{Kurk04} Kurk, J.~D., Pentericci, L., R{\"o}ttgering, H.~J.~A., \& Miley, G.~K.\ 2004, \aap, 428, 793
1350:
1351: \bibitem[La Barbera et al.(2003)]{LaBarbera03} La Barbera, F.,
1352: Busarello, G., Merluzzi, P., Massarotti, M.,
1353: \& Capaccioli, M.\ 2003, \apj, 595, 127
1354:
1355:
1356: \bibitem[Le Borgne et al.(2006)]{Leborgne06} Le Borgne, D., et
1357: al.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 48
1358:
1359: \bibitem[{{Lidman} {et~al.}(2004){Lidman}, {Rosati}, {Demarco}, {Nonino},
1360: {Mainieri}, {Stanford}, \& {Toft}}]{Lidman04}
1361: {Lidman}, C., {Rosati}, P., {Demarco}, R., {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 416, 829
1362:
1363:
1364: \bibitem[Labb{\'e} et al.(2005)]{Labbe05} Labb{\'e}, I., et
1365: al.\ 2005, \apjl, 624, L81
1366:
1367: \bibitem[Longhetti et al.(2007)]{Longhetti07} Longhetti, M., et
1368: al.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 614
1369:
1370: \bibitem[{{Maraston}(1998)}]{Maraston98}
1371: {Maraston}, C. 1998, \mnras, 300, 872
1372:
1373: \bibitem[{{Maraston}(2005)}]{Maraston05}
1374: {Maraston}, C. 2005, \mnras, 362, 799
1375:
1376: \bibitem[{{Marleau} \& {Simard}(1998)}]{Marleau98}
1377: {Marleau}, F.~R. \& {Simard}, L. 1998, \apj, 507, 585
1378:
1379:
1380: \bibitem[McIntosh et al.(2005)]{McIntosh05} McIntosh, D.~H., et
1381: al.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 191
1382:
1383:
1384: \bibitem[Mei et al.(2006a)]{Mei06a} Mei, S., et al.\ 2006,
1385: \apj, 644, 759
1386:
1387: \bibitem[Mei et al.(2006b)]{Mei06b} Mei, S., et al.\ 2006,
1388: \apj, 639, 81
1389:
1390: \bibitem[Menci et al.(2008)]{Menci08} Menci, N., Rosati, P., Gobat, R., Strazzullo, V., Rettura, Mei, S., \& Demarco, R. \ 2008, \apj, submitted
1391:
1392: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1996)]{Moore96} Moore, B., Katz, N.,
1393: Lake, G., Dressler, A., \& Oemler, A.\ 1996, \nat, 379, 613
1394:
1395: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1998)]{Moore98} Moore, B., Lake, G.,
1396: \& Katz, N.\ 1998, \apj, 495, 139
1397:
1398: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{Moore99} Moore, B., Ghigna, S.,
1399: Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J.,
1400: \& Tozzi, P.\ 1999, \apjl, 524, L19
1401:
1402: \bibitem[Nipoti et al.(2003)]{Nipoti03} Nipoti, C., Londrillo,
1403: P., \& Ciotti, L.\ 2003, \mnras, 342, 501
1404:
1405: \bibitem[Nonino et al.(2008)]{Nonino08} Nonino, M., Rosati, Rettura,
1406: A. et al.\ 2008, in preparation
1407:
1408: \bibitem[Papovich et al.(2006)]{Papovich06} Papovich, C., et al.\
1409: 2006, \apj, 640, 92
1410:
1411: \bibitem[Renzini(2006)]{Renzini06} Renzini, A.\ 2006, \araa, 44, 141
1412:
1413: \bibitem[Rettura et al.(2006)]{Rettura06} Rettura, A., et al.\
1414: 2006, \aap, 458, 717
1415:
1416: \bibitem[{{Rosati} {et~al.}(2004){Rosati}, {Tozzi}, {Ettori}, {Mainieri},
1417: {Demarco}, {Stanford}, {Lidman}, {Nonino}, {Borgani}, {Della Ceca},
1418: {Eisenhardt}, {Holden}, \& {Norman}}]{Rosati04}
1419: {Rosati}, P., {Tozzi}, P., {Ettori}, S., {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 230
1420:
1421: \bibitem[{{Salpeter}(1955)}]{Salpeter55}
1422: {Salpeter}, E.~E. 1955, \apj, 121, 161
1423:
1424: \bibitem[S{\'a}nchez-Bl{\'a}zquez et
1425: al.(2006)]{Sanchez06} S{\'a}nchez-Bl{\'a}zquez, P., Gorgas, J., Cardiel, N., \& Gonz{\'a}lez, J.~J.\ 2006, \aap, 457, 809
1426:
1427: \bibitem[{{Saracco} {et~al.}(2004){Saracco}, {Longhetti}, {Giallongo},
1428: {Arnouts}, {Cristiani}, {D'Odorico}, {Fontana}, {Nonino}, \&
1429: {Vanzella}}]{Saracco04}
1430: {Saracco}, P., {Longhetti}, M., {Giallongo}, E., {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 420, 125
1431:
1432: \bibitem[Sawicki \& Thompson(2006)]{Sawicki06} Sawicki, M., \&
1433: Thompson, D.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 653
1434:
1435:
1436: \bibitem[{{S\'ersic}(1968)}]{Sersic68}
1437: {Sersic}, J.~L. 1968, {Atlas de galaxias australes} (Cordoba, Argentina: Obs.
1438: Astronomico, 1968)
1439:
1440: \bibitem[Shen et al.(2003)]{Shen03} Shen, S., Mo, H.~J.,
1441: White, S.~D.~M., Blanton, M.~R., Kauffmann, G., Voges, W., Brinkmann, J.,
1442: \& Csabai, I.\ 2003, \mnras, 343, 978
1443:
1444: \bibitem[{{Simard}(1998)}]{Simard98}
1445: {Simard}, L. 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. 145, 108--+
1446:
1447: \bibitem[{{Somerville} {et~al.}(2004){Somerville}, {Moustakas}, {Mobasher},
1448: {Gardner}, {Cimatti}, {Conselice}, {Daddi}, {Dahlen}, {Dickinson},
1449: {Eisenhardt}, {Lotz}, {Papovich}, {Renzini}, \& {Stern}}]{Somerville04}
1450: {Somerville}, R.~S., {Moustakas}, L.~A., {Mobasher}, B., {et~al.} 2004, \apjl,
1451: 600, L135
1452:
1453: \bibitem[{{Spergel} {et~al.}(2003){Spergel}, {Verde}, {Peiris}, {Komatsu},
1454: {Nolta}, {Bennett}, {Halpern}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Kogut}, {Limon},
1455: {Meyer}, {Page}, {Tucker}, {Weiland}, {Wollack}, \& {Wright}}]{Spergel03}
1456: {Spergel}, D.~N., {Verde}, L., {Peiris}, H.~V., {et~al.} 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
1457:
1458: \bibitem[Strazzullo et al.(2006)]{Strazzullo06} Strazzullo, V., et
1459: al.\ 2006, \aap, 450, 909
1460:
1461:
1462: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(2005)]{Steidel05} Steidel, C.~C.,
1463: Adelberger, K.~L., Shapley, A.~E., Erb, D.~K., Reddy, N.~A.,
1464: \& Pettini, M.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 44
1465:
1466: \bibitem[Tanaka et al.(2005)]{Tanaka05} Tanaka, M., Kodama, T.,
1467: Arimoto, N., Okamura, S., Umetsu, K., Shimasaku, K., Tanaka, I.,
1468: \& Yamada, T.\ 2005, \mnras, 362, 268
1469:
1470: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2004)]{Thomas04} Thomas, D., Maraston,
1471: C., \& Korn, A.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, L19
1472:
1473: \bibitem[{{Thomas} {et~al.}(2005){Thomas}, {Saglia}, {Bender}, {Thomas},
1474: {Gebhardt}, {Magorrian}, {Corsini}, \& {Wegner}}]{Thomas05}
1475: {Thomas}, J., {Saglia}, R.~P., {Bender}, R., {et~al.} 2005, \mnras, 360, 1355
1476:
1477:
1478: \bibitem[Toft et al.(2004)]{Toft04} Toft, S., Mainieri, V., Rosati, P., Lidman, C., Demarco, R., Nonino, M., \& Stanford, S.~A.\ 2004, \aap, 422, 29
1479:
1480:
1481: \bibitem[Toft et al.(2007)]{Toft07} Toft, S., et al.\ 2007,
1482: \apj, 671, 285
1483:
1484: \bibitem[Trager et al.(2000)]{Trager00} Trager, S.~C., Faber,
1485: S.~M., Worthey, G., \& Gonz{\'a}lez, J.~J.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 1645
1486:
1487: \bibitem[Treu et al.(1999)]{Treu99} Treu, T., Stiavelli, M.,
1488: Casertano, S., M{\o}ller, P., \& Bertin, G.\ 1999, \mnras, 308, 1037
1489:
1490: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2001)]{Treu01} Treu, T., Stiavelli, M.,
1491: Bertin, G., Casertano, S., \& M{\o}ller, P.\ 2001, \mnras, 326, 237
1492:
1493: \bibitem[{{Treu} {et~al.}(2005){Treu}, {Ellis}, {Liao}, {van Dokkum}, {Tozzi},
1494: {Coil}, {Newman}, {Cooper}, \& {Davis}}]{Treu05}
1495: {Treu}, T., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Liao}, T.~X., {et~al.} 2005, \apj, 633, 174
1496:
1497: \bibitem[Trujillo et al.(2004)]{Trujillo04} Trujillo, I., et al.\
1498: 2004, \apj, 604, 521
1499:
1500: \bibitem[Trujillo et al.(2006)]{Trujillo06} Trujillo, I., et al.\
1501: 2006, \apj, 650, 18
1502:
1503: \bibitem[Trujillo et al.(2007)]{Trujillo07} Trujillo, I.,
1504: Conselice, C.~J., Bundy, K., Cooper, M.~C., Eisenhardt, P.,
1505: \& Ellis, R.~S.\ 2007, \mnras, 382, 109
1506:
1507: \bibitem[van der Wel et al.(2005)]{vdW05} van der Wel, A.,
1508: Franx, M., van Dokkum, P.~G., Rix, H.-W., Illingworth, G.~D.,
1509: \& Rosati, P.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 145
1510:
1511: \bibitem[van der Wel et al.(2006)]{vdW06} van der Wel, A.,
1512: Franx, M., Wuyts, S., van Dokkum, P.~G., Huang, J., Rix, H.-W.,
1513: \& Illingworth, G.~D.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 97
1514:
1515: \bibitem[{{van Dokkum} \& {Franx}(1996)}]{vandokkum96}
1516: {van Dokkum}, P.~G. \& {Franx}, M. 1996, \mnras, 281, 985
1517:
1518: \bibitem[{{van Dokkum} {et~al.}(1998){van Dokkum}, {Franx}, {Kelson}, \&
1519: {Illingworth}}]{vandokkum98}
1520: {van Dokkum}, P.~G., {Franx}, M., {Kelson}, D.~D., \& {Illingworth}, G.~D.
1521: 1998, \apjl, 504, L17+
1522:
1523: \bibitem[van Dokkum
1524: \& Franx(2001)]{vandokkum01} van Dokkum, P.~G., \& Franx, M.\ 2001, \apj, 553, 90
1525: \bibitem[van Dokkum \& Stanford(2003)]{vandokkumstanford03} van Dokkum, P.~G., \& Stanford, S.~A.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 78
1526:
1527: \bibitem[van Dokkum \& van der Marel(2007)]{vandokkum07} van Dokkum, P.~G., \& van der Marel, R.~P.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 30
1528:
1529: \bibitem[Vanzella et al.(2005)]{Vanzella05} Vanzella, E., et al.\
1530: 2005, \aap, 434, 53
1531:
1532: \bibitem[Vanzella et al.(2006)]{Vanzella06} Vanzella, E., et al.\
1533: 2006, \aap, 454, 423
1534:
1535: \bibitem[Wolf et
1536: al.(2004)]{Wolf04} Wolf, C., et al.\ 2004, \aap, 421, 913
1537:
1538: \bibitem[Worthey(1994)]{Worthey94} Worthey, G.\ 1994, \apjs, 95,
1539: 107
1540:
1541:
1542: \bibitem[Yi et al.(1999)]{Yi99} Yi, S., Lee, Y.-W., Woo,
1543: J.-H., Park, J.-H., Demarque, P., \& Oemler, A.~J.\ 1999, \apj, 513, 128
1544:
1545: \bibitem[Yi et al.(1997)]{Yi97} Yi, S., Demarque, P., \& Oemler, A.~J.\ 1997, \apj, 486, 201
1546:
1547:
1548: \bibitem[Zirm et al.(2007)]{Zirm07} Zirm, A.~W., et al.\ 2007,
1549: \apj, 656, 66
1550:
1551: \bibitem[Zirm et al.(2008)]{Zirm08} Zirm, A.~W., et al.\ 2008,
1552: ArXiv e-prints, 802, arXiv:0802.2095
1553:
1554: \end{thebibliography}
1555:
1556:
1557: \clearpage
1558:
1559: \begin{figure*}
1560: \epsscale{1.}
1561: \plotone{f1.eps}
1562: \caption{BC03 composite stellar population models of 4.0Gyr old
1563: models, of different $\tau$s. The colored lines are the filter
1564: transmission curves of the observing bands we use throughout this
1565: work, shifted to our sample rest-frame.}
1566: \label{sed_model}
1567: \end{figure*}
1568:
1569:
1570: \clearpage
1571:
1572: \begin{figure*}
1573: \epsscale{1.0}
1574: \includegraphics[scale=.7]{f2a.eps}
1575: \includegraphics[scale=.7]{f2b.eps}
1576: \caption{{\it Top panel}: $i-K_s$ vs $V-i$ color-color plot of $BC03$
1577: composite stellar population models at $z=1.24$ superimposed on our
1578: GOODS ETG photometry at $z=1.24 \pm 0.15$ in blue circles. The
1579: squares account for SFHs with various $\tau$ models. The grids are
1580: drawn for seven different $\tau$s and five ages ($2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4$
1581: Gyrs): the colored lines represent iso-metallicity colors of
1582: $Z_{\odot}$. The black arrow indicate an extinction of
1583: $E(B-V)=0.2$ as parameterized with the reddening curve of
1584: \citep{Cardelli89}. {\it Bottom left panel:} $i-K_{s}$ vs. $B-i$
1585: color-color diagram of the same models and data: $B$-band ($\lambda_{rest} \sim 2000 \AA$)
1586: is mandatory to break the age-SFH degeneracy at z=1.24}
1587: \label{colmod}
1588: \end{figure*}
1589:
1590:
1591: \clearpage
1592:
1593: \begin{figure*}
1594: \epsscale{1.}
1595: \plotone{f3.eps}
1596: \caption{$U-B$ color - mass Diagram of the mass-selected samples of
1597: CL1252 early- (filled red circles) and late-type (red stars)
1598: galaxies as well as of CDFS field early- (filled blue circles) and
1599: late-type (blue stars) galaxies. Uncertainties in the stellar mass
1600: are $\sim 0.15$ dex. Field ETG galaxies are distributed around the
1601: cluster red-sequence, although with a larger scatter}
1602: \label{UMB_mass}
1603: \end{figure*}
1604:
1605: \clearpage
1606:
1607: \begin{figure*}
1608: \epsscale{1.}
1609: \includegraphics[scale=.35]{f4a.eps}
1610: \includegraphics[scale=.35]{f4b.eps}
1611: \caption{$B-V$ Color versus Stellar Mass diagram of the observed
1612: samples of cluster and field galaxies ({\it left panel}, symbols are
1613: the same as in Fig.~\ref{UMB_mass}) with over-plotted contours
1614: obtained with the models of \citet{Menci08} ({\it right panel}) for
1615: galaxies in clusters; the color code represents the abundance of
1616: galaxies in a given ($\frac{log M_{*}}{M_{\odot}}-(B-V)$) bin.}
1617: \label{BMV_mass_theory}
1618: \end{figure*}
1619:
1620: \clearpage
1621: \begin{figure*}
1622: \epsscale{1.}
1623: \plotone{f5.eps}
1624: \caption{Mean surface brightness $<\mu_{e}>$ versus effective radius,
1625: $R_{e} [kpc]$. The Kormendy relation in the rest-frame $B$-band for
1626: our ETG in the field (filled blue circles) and in the cluster
1627: (filled red circles). All the data are corrected for the
1628: cosmological dimming $(1+z)^{4}$. The red dotted-dashed line
1629: represents the KR at $z \sim 0$ found by \citet{LaBarbera03},
1630: K-corrected to our rest-frame $B$-band. The error bar in the
1631: bottom-right is representative of the typical uncertainties of our
1632: measurements.}
1633: \label{Kormendy}
1634: \end{figure*}
1635:
1636:
1637: \clearpage
1638: \begin{figure*}
1639: \epsscale{1.}
1640: \plotone{f6.eps}
1641: \caption{The stellar mass vs. size relation for the ETG in the
1642: cluster (filled red circles) and in the field (filled blue
1643: circles). The red dotted-dashed line represent the same relation at
1644: $z \sim 0$ found by \citep{Shen03} with SDSS data. The mean size
1645: relative error is $<$ 20\%. Uncertainties in stellar mass are $\sim
1646: 0.15$ dex.}
1647: \label{mass_size}
1648: \end{figure*}
1649:
1650: \clearpage
1651: \begin{figure*}
1652: \epsscale{1.}
1653: \plotone{f7.eps}
1654: \caption{The stellar mass vs. the Average surface mass density within
1655: the half-light radius for the ETG in the cluster (filled red
1656: circles) and in the field (filled blue circles). For comparison we
1657: over-plot $z \sim 2.5$ quiescent DRGs (qDRGs) (open red ellipses),
1658: star-forming DRGs (sDRGs) (open red stars), LBGs (filled blue stars)
1659: from \citet{Zirm07} paper. Other samples of $1.0 \lesssim z
1660: \lesssim 1.5$ ETG are also drawn from the works of
1661: \citep{Trujillo06} (open red squares), \citep{Daddi05} (open red
1662: circles), \citep{vdW06} (open black circles), and \citep{Rettura06}
1663: (open black squares). The red dotted-dashed line represent
1664: the local relation for ETG in SDSS calculated from the mass-size
1665: relation of \citet{Shen03}. The error bar in the bottom-right is
1666: representative of the typical uncertainties of our measurements.}
1667: \label{andrew}
1668: \end{figure*}
1669:
1670: \clearpage
1671:
1672: \begin{figure*}
1673: \epsscale{1.0}
1674: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=.55]{f8a.eps}
1675: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=.55]{f8b.eps}
1676: \caption{{\it Top panel}: Formation epochs of ETGs: Histogram of the
1677: field (dashed blue line) and cluster (solid red line) star-formation
1678: weighted ages derived with the BC03 models. {\it Bottom panel}:
1679: Histogram of the field and cluster star-formation-weighted ages
1680: derived with the M05 models.}
1681: \label{timing}
1682: \end{figure*}
1683:
1684:
1685: \clearpage
1686:
1687: \begin{figure*}
1688: \epsscale{1.0}
1689: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{f9a.eps}
1690: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{f9b.eps}
1691: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{f9c.eps}
1692: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{f9d.eps}
1693: \caption{{\it Top-left panel}: Stellar mass vs. star formation
1694: weighted ages for the ETG in the cluster (filled red circles) and in
1695: the field (filled blue circles). {\it Top-right panel}: The
1696: dependence of the lookback time to formation on the galaxy mass.
1697: {\it Bottom-left panel}: Rest-frame $U-B$ color vs. age of ETG in
1698: both environments. {\it Bottom-right panel}: Formation {\it
1699: timescales}, $\tau$, of ETG as a function of their stellar mass in
1700: both the field and cluster environment. The mean error in stellar
1701: age is 0.5 Gyr. Uncertainties in stellar masses and $\tau$ are
1702: $\sim 0.15$ dex and $\sim 0.2$ Gyr, respectively.}
1703: \label{quartetto}
1704: \end{figure*}
1705:
1706: \begin{figure*}
1707: \epsscale{1.0}
1708: \includegraphics[scale=.8]{f10.eps}
1709: \caption{Stellar Mass vs. $U$-band observed magnitude (rest-frame
1710: $\sim 1700 \AA $) for the ETG detected in the field (filled blue
1711: circles). Solid lines represent the 1$\sigma$ (1'' radius aperture)
1712: limiting magnitudes of our data-sets respectively (blue for the field,
1713: red for the cluster) Dashed lines represent the 3$\sigma$ limits.
1714: The blue dotted line indicates the observed magnitude of the median
1715: stack of the field ETG $U$-band images. An image of the median
1716: stack of the field ETG $U$-band observations is displayed in the
1717: bottom-left corner. The median stack of the cluster ones is shown
1718: in the middle. The image at the bottom-right corner shows instead
1719: the CDFS stack, simulated in the actual CL1252 data. (see text for
1720: more details).}
1721: \label{uband}
1722: \end{figure*}
1723:
1724:
1725: \clearpage
1726:
1727: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,
1728: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color
1729: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates
1730: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.
1731: %%
1732:
1733: %\begin{figure}
1734: %\plottwo{f2.eps}{f2_color.eps}
1735: %\caption{A panel taken from Figure 2 of \citet{rudnick03}.
1736: %See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color version
1737: %of this figure.\label{fig2}}
1738: %\end{figure}
1739:
1740: %% This figure uses \includegraphics to scale and rotate the still frame
1741: %% for an mpeg animation.
1742:
1743:
1744: %\begin{figure}
1745: %\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=.50]{f3.eps}
1746: %\caption{Animation still frame taken from \citet{kim03}.
1747: %This figure is also available as an mpeg
1748: %animation in the electronic edition of the
1749: %{\it Astrophysical Journal}.}
1750: %\end{figure}
1751:
1752: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may
1753: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the
1754: %% User Guide for details.
1755: %%
1756: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
1757: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
1758: %% after every seventh one.
1759:
1760: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
1761: %% each one.
1762:
1763: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
1764: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
1765: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
1766: %%
1767:
1768: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
1769: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
1770:
1771: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
1772: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
1773: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to
1774: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the
1775: %% reduced font size.
1776: %%
1777: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
1778: %% inside the \tablecaption.
1779:
1780: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full
1781: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic
1782: %% edition.
1783:
1784: %\clearpage
1785:
1786: %\begin{deluxetable}{ccrrrrrrrrcrl}
1787: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1788: %\rotate
1789: %\tablecaption{Sample table taken from \citet{treu03}\label{tbl-1}}
1790: %\tablewidth{0pt}
1791: %\tablehead{
1792: %\colhead{POS} & \colhead{chip} & \colhead{ID} & \colhead{X} & \colhead{Y} &
1793: %\colhead{RA} & \colhead{DEC} & \colhead{IAU$\pm$ $\delta$ IAU} &
1794: %\colhead{IAP1$\pm$ $\delta$ IAP1} & \colhead{IAP2 $\pm$ $\delta$ IAP2} &
1795: %\colhead{star} & \colhead{E} & \colhead{Comment}
1796: %}
1797: %\startdata
1798: %0 & 2 & 1 & 1370.99 & 57.35 & 6.651120 & 17.131149 & 21.344$\pm$0.006 & 2
1799: %4.385$\pm$0.016 & 23.528$\pm$0.013 & 0.0 & 9 & - \\
1800: %0 & 2 & 2 & 1476.62 & 8.03 & 6.651480 & 17.129572 & 21.641$\pm$0.005 & 2
1801: %3.141$\pm$0.007 & 22.007$\pm$0.004 & 0.0 & 9 & - \\
1802: %0 & 2 & 3 & 1079.62 & 28.92 & 6.652430 & 17.135000 & 23.953$\pm$0.030 & 2
1803: %4.890$\pm$0.023 & 24.240$\pm$0.023 & 0.0 & - & - \\
1804: %0 & 2 & 4 & 114.58 & 21.22 & 6.655560 & 17.148020 & 23.801$\pm$0.025 & 2
1805: %5.039$\pm$0.026 & 24.112$\pm$0.021 & 0.0 & - & - \\
1806: %0 & 2 & 5 & 46.78 & 19.46 & 6.655800 & 17.148932 & 23.012$\pm$0.012 & 2
1807: %3.924$\pm$0.012 & 23.282$\pm$0.011 & 0.0 & - & - \\
1808: %0 & 2 & 6 & 1441.84 & 16.16 & 6.651480 & 17.130072 & 24.393$\pm$0.045 & 2
1809: %6.099$\pm$0.062 & 25.119$\pm$0.049 & 0.0 & - & - \\
1810: %0 & 2 & 7 & 205.43 & 3.96 & 6.655520 & 17.146742 & 24.424$\pm$0.032 & 2
1811: %5.028$\pm$0.025 & 24.597$\pm$0.027 & 0.0 & - & - \\
1812: %0 & 2 & 8 & 1321.63 & 9.76 & 6.651950 & 17.131672 & 22.189$\pm$0.011 & 2
1813: %4.743$\pm$0.021 & 23.298$\pm$0.011 & 0.0 & 4 & edge \\
1814: %\enddata
1815: %% Text for table notes should follow after the \enddata but before
1816: %% the \end{deluxetable}. Make sure there is at least one \tablenotemark
1817: %% in the table for each \tablenotetext.
1818: %\tablecomments{Table \ref{tbl-1} is published in its entirety in the
1819: %electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
1820: %shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
1821: %\tablenotetext{a}{Sample footnote for table~\ref{tbl-1} that was generated
1822: %with the deluxetable environment}
1823: %\tablenotetext{b}{Another sample footnote for table~\ref{tbl-1}}
1824: %\end{deluxetable}
1825:
1826: %%% If you use the table environment, please indicate horizontal rules using
1827: %% \tableline, not \hline.
1828: %% Do not put multiple tabular environments within a single table.
1829: %% The optional \label should appear inside the \caption command.
1830:
1831: %\clearpage
1832:
1833: %\begin{table}
1834: %\begin{center}
1835: %\caption{More terribly relevant tabular information.\label{tbl-2}}
1836: %\begin{tabular}{crrrrrrrrrrr}
1837: %\tableline\tableline
1838: %Star & Height & $d_{x}$ & $d_{y}$ & $n$ & $\chi^2$ & $R_{maj}$ & $R_{min}$ &
1839: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{$P$\tablenotemark{a}} & $P R_{maj}$ & $P R_{min}$ &
1840: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Theta$\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1841: %\tableline
1842: %1 &33472.5 &-0.1 &0.4 &53 &27.4 &2.065 &1.940 &3.900 &68.3 &116.2 &-27.639\\
1843: %2 &27802.4 &-0.3 &-0.2 &60 &3.7 &1.628 &1.510 &2.156 &6.8 &7.5 &-26.764\\
1844: %3 &29210.6 &0.9 &0.3 &60 &3.4 &1.622 &1.551 &2.159 &6.7 &7.3 &-40.272\\
1845: %4 &32733.8 &-1.2\tablenotemark{c} &-0.5 &41 &54.8 &2.282 &2.156 &4.313 &117.4 &78.2 &-35.847\\
1846: %5 & 9607.4 &-0.4 &-0.4 &60 &1.4 &1.669\tablenotemark{c} &1.574 &2.343 &8.0 &8.9 &-33.417\\
1847: %6 &31638.6 &1.6 &0.1 &39 &315.2 & 3.433 &3.075 &7.488 &92.1 &25.3 &-12.052\\
1848: %\tableline
1849: %\end{tabular}
1850: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
1851: %\tablenotetext{a}{Sample footnote for table~\ref{tbl-2} that was
1852: %generated with the \LaTeX\ table environment}
1853: %\tablenotetext{b}{Yet another sample footnote for table~\ref{tbl-2}}
1854: %\tablenotetext{c}{Another sample footnote for table~\ref{tbl-2}}
1855: %\tablecomments{We can also attach a long-ish paragraph of explanatory
1856: %material to a table.}
1857: %\end{center}
1858: %\end{table}
1859:
1860: %% If the table is more than one page long, the width of the table can vary
1861: %% from page to page when the default \tablewidth is used, as below. The
1862: %% individual table widths for each page will be written to the log file; a
1863: %% maximum tablewidth for the table can be computed from these values.
1864: %% The \tablewidth argument can then be reset and the file reprocessed, so
1865: %% that the table is of uniform width throughout. Try getting the widths
1866: %% from the log file and changing the \tablewidth parameter to see how
1867: %% adjusting this value affects table formatting.
1868:
1869: %% The \dataset{} macro has also been applied to a few of the objects to
1870: %% show how many observations can be tagged in a table.
1871:
1872: %\clearpage
1873:
1874: %\begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrcrrrrr}
1875: %\tablewidth{0pt}
1876: %\tablecaption{Literature Data for Program Stars}
1877: %\tablehead{
1878: %\colhead{Star} & \colhead{V} &
1879: %\colhead{b$-$y} & \colhead{m$_1$} &
1880: %\colhead{c$_1$} & \colhead{ref} &
1881: %\colhead{T$_{\rm eff}$} & \colhead{log g} &
1882: %\colhead{v$_{\rm turb}$} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} &
1883: %\colhead{ref}}
1884: %\startdata
1885: %HD 97 & 9.7& 0.51& 0.15& 0.35& 2 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.50$ & 2 \\
1886: %& & & & & & 5015 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.50$ & 10 \\
1887: %\dataset[ADS/Sa.HST#O6H04VAXQ]{HD 2665} & 7.7& 0.54& 0.09& 0.34& 2 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata% & $-2.30$ & 2 \\
1888: %& & & & & & 5000 & 2.50 & 2.4 & $-1.99$ & 5 \\
1889: %& & & & & & 5120 & 3.00 & 2.0 & $-1.69$ & 7 \\
1890: %& & & & & & 4980 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.05$ & 10 \\
1891: %HD 4306 & 9.0& 0.52& 0.05& 0.35& 20, 2& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.70$ & 2 \\
1892: %& & & & & & 5000 & 1.75 & 2.0 & $-2.70$ & 13 \\
1893: %& & & & & & 5000 & 1.50 & 1.8 & $-2.65$ & 14 \\
1894: %& & & & & & 4950 & 2.10 & 2.0 & $-2.92$ & 8 \\
1895: %& & & & & & 5000 & 2.25 & 2.0 & $-2.83$ & 18 \\
1896: %& & & & & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.80$ & 21 \\
1897: %& & & & & & 4930 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.45$ & 10 \\
1898: %HD 5426 & 9.6& 0.50& 0.08& 0.34& 2 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.30$ & 2 \\
1899: %\dataset[ADS/Sa.HST#O5F654010]{HD 6755} & 7.7& 0.49& 0.12& 0.28& 20, 2& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.70$ & 2 \\
1900: %& & & & & & 5200 & 2.50 & 2.4 & $-1.56$ & 5 \\
1901: %& & & & & & 5260 & 3.00 & 2.7 & $-1.67$ & 7 \\
1902: %& & & & & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.58$ & 21 \\
1903: %& & & & & & 5200 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.80$ & 10 \\
1904: %& & & & & & 4600 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.75$ & 10 \\
1905: %\dataset[ADS/Sa.HST#O56D06010]{HD 94028} & 8.2& 0.34& 0.08& 0.25& 20 & 5795 & 4.00 & \nodata & $-1.70$ & 22 \\
1906: %& & & & & & 5860 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.70$ & 4 \\
1907: %& & & & & & 5910 & 3.80 & \nodata & $-1.76$ & 15 \\
1908: %& & & & & & 5800 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.67$ & 17 \\
1909: %& & & & & & 5902 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.50$ & 11 \\
1910: %& & & & & & 5900 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.57$ & 3 \\
1911: %& & & & & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.32$ & 21 \\
1912: %HD 97916 & 9.2& 0.29& 0.10& 0.41& 20 & 6125 & 4.00 & \nodata & $-1.10$ & 22 \\
1913: %& & & & & & 6160 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.39$ & 3 \\
1914: %& & & & & & 6240 & 3.70 & \nodata & $-1.28$ & 15 \\
1915: %& & & & & & 5950 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.50$ & 17 \\
1916: %& & & & & & 6204 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.36$ & 11 \\
1917: %\cutinhead{This is a cut-in head}
1918: %+26\arcdeg2606& 9.7&0.34&0.05&0.28&20,11& 5980 & \nodata & \nodata &$<-2.20$ & 19 \\
1919: %& & & & & & 5950 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.89$ & 24 \\
1920: %+26\arcdeg3578& 9.4&0.31&0.05&0.37&20,11& 5830 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.60$ & 4 \\
1921: %& & & & & & 5800 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.62$ & 17 \\
1922: %& & & & & & 6177 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.51$ & 11 \\
1923: %& & & & & & 6000 & 3.25 & \nodata & $-2.20$ & 22 \\
1924: %& & & & & & 6140 & 3.50 & \nodata & $-2.57$ & 15 \\
1925: %+30\arcdeg2611& 9.2&0.82&0.33&0.55& 2 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.70$ & 2 \\
1926: %& & & & & & 4400 & 1.80 & \nodata & $-1.70$ & 12 \\
1927: %& & & & & & 4400 & 0.90 & 1.7 & $-1.20$ & 14 \\
1928: %& & & & & & 4260 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.55$ & 10 \\
1929: %+37\arcdeg1458& 8.9&0.44&0.07&0.22&20,11& 5296 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.39$ & 11 \\
1930: %& & & & & & 5420 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.43$ & 3 \\
1931: %+58\arcdeg1218&10.0&0.51&0.03&0.36& 2 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.80$ & 2 \\
1932: %& & & & & & 5000 & 1.10 & 2.2 & $-2.71$ & 14 \\
1933: %& & & & & & 5000 & 2.20 & 1.8 & $-2.46$ & 5 \\
1934: %& & & & & & 4980 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.55$ & 10 \\
1935: %+72\arcdeg0094&10.2&0.31&0.09&0.26&12 & 6160 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.80$ & 19 \\
1936: %\sidehead{I'm a side head:}
1937: %G5--36 & 10.8& 0.40& 0.07& 0.28& 20 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.19$ & 21 \\
1938: %G18--54 & 10.7& 0.37& 0.08& 0.28& 20 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.34$ & 21 \\
1939: %G20--08 & 9.9& 0.36& 0.05& 0.25& 20,11& 5849 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.59$ & 11 \\
1940: %& & & & & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.03$ & 21 \\
1941: %G20--15 & 10.6& 0.45& 0.03& 0.27& 20,11& 5657 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.00$ & 11 \\
1942: %& & & & & & 6020 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.56$ & 3 \\
1943: %%& & & & & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.58$ & 21 \\
1944: %G21--22 & 10.7& 0.38& 0.07& 0.27& 20,11& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.23$ & 21 \\
1945: %G24--03 & 10.5& 0.36& 0.06& 0.27& 20,11& 5866 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.78$ & 11 \\
1946: %& & & & & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.70$ & 21 \\
1947: %G30--52 & 8.6& 0.50& 0.25& 0.27& 11 & 4757 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.12$ & 11 \\
1948: %& & & & & & 4880 & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.14$ & 3 \\
1949: %G33--09 & 10.6& 0.41& 0.10& 0.28& 20 & 5575 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.48$ & 11 \\
1950: %G66--22 & 10.5& 0.46& 0.16& 0.28& 11 & 5060 & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.77$ & 3 \\
1951: %& & & & & & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-1.04$ & 21 \\
1952: %G90--03 & 10.4& 0.37& 0.04& 0.29& 20 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.01$ & 21 \\
1953: %LP 608--62\tablenotemark{a} & 10.5& 0.30& 0.07& 0.35& 11 & 6250 & \nodata &
1954: %\nodata & $-2.70$ & 4 \\
1955: %\%enddata
1956: %\tablenotetext{a}{Star LP 608--62 is also known as BD+1\arcdeg 2341p. We will
1957: %make this footnote extra long so that it extends over two lines.}
1958: %%% You can append references to a table using the \tablerefs command.
1959: %\tablerefs{
1960: %(1) Barbuy, Spite, \& Spite 1985; (2) Bond 1980; (3) Carbon et al. 1987;
1961: %(4) Hobbs \& Duncan 1987; (5) Gilroy et al. 1988: (6) Gratton \& Ortolani 1986;
1962: %(7) Gratton \& Sneden 1987; (8) Gratton \& Sneden (1988); (9) Gratton \& Sneden 1991;
1963: %(10) Kraft et al. 1982; (11) LCL, or Laird, 1990; (12) Leep \& Wallerstein 1981;
1964: %(13) Luck \& Bond 1981; (14) Luck \& Bond 1985; (15) Magain 1987;
1965: %(16) Magain 1989; (17) Peterson 1981; (18) Peterson, Kurucz, \& Carney 1990;
1966: %(19) RMB; (20) Schuster \& Nissen 1988; (21) Schuster \& Nissen 1989b;
1967: %(22) Spite et al. 1984; (23) Spite \& Spite 1986; (24) Hobbs \& Thorburn 1991;
1968: %(25) Hobbs et al. 1991; (26) Olsen 1983.}
1969: %\end{deluxetable}
1970:
1971: %% Tables may also be prepared as separate files. See the accompanying
1972: %% sample file table.tex for an example of an external table file.
1973: %% To include an external file in your main document, use the \input
1974: %% command. Uncomment the line below to include table.tex in this
1975: %% sample file. (Note that you will need to comment out the \documentclass,
1976: %% \begin{document}, and \end{document} commands from table.tex if you want
1977: %% to include it in this document.)
1978:
1979: %% \input{table}
1980:
1981: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
1982: %% that appears after it.
1983:
1984: \end{document}
1985:
1986: %%
1987: %% End of file `ms.tex'.
1988: