1: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

2: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

3: \newcommand{\myemail}{}

4: \usepackage{rotating}

5: \slugcomment{}

6: \shorttitle{Red Nuggets at $z\sim 1.5$}

7: \shortauthors{Damjanov et al.}

8: \begin{document}

9: \title{Red Nuggets at $z\sim 1.5$: Compact passive galaxies and the formation of the Kormendy Relation}

10: 

11: \author{\medskip 

12: Ivana Damjanov\altaffilmark{\dag}, 

13: Patrick J. McCarthy\altaffilmark{\ddag}, 

14: Roberto G. Abraham\altaffilmark{\dag}, 

15: Karl Glazebrook\altaffilmark{\P}, 

16: Haojing Yan\altaffilmark{\ddag}, 

17: Erin Mentuch\altaffilmark{\dag},

18: Damien Le Borgne\altaffilmark{\diamond}, 

19: Sandra Savaglio\altaffilmark{\S}, 

20: David Crampton\altaffilmark{\circ}, 

21: Richard Murowinski\altaffilmark{\circ}, 

22: St{\'e}phanie Juneau\altaffilmark{\sun}, 

23: R. G. Carlberg\altaffilmark{\dag},

24: Inger J{\o}rgensen\altaffilmark{\triangleright}, 

25: Kathy Roth\altaffilmark{\triangleright}, 

26: Hsiao-Wen Chen\altaffilmark{\wedge}, and 

27: Ronald O. Marzke\altaffilmark{\star}}

28: 

29: 

30: \altaffiltext{\dag}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S~3H4}

31: 

32: \altaffiltext{\ddag}{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101}

33: 

34: \altaffiltext{\P}{Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, 1 Alfred St, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia}

35: 

36: \altaffiltext{\S}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik, Garching, Germany}

37: 

38: \altaffiltext{$\circ$}{Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council, 5071 West Saanich Road, Victoria, British Columbia, V9E~2E7, Canada.} 

39: 

40: \altaffiltext{$\sun$}{Department of Astronomy \slash  Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N Cherry Ave., Rm. N204, Tucson AZ 85721-0065}

41: 

42: \altaffiltext{$\diamond$}{DSM\slash ~DAPNIA\slash ~Service d'Astrophysique, CEA\slash ~SACLAY, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France}

43: 

44: \altaffiltext{$\triangleright$}{Gemini Observatory, Hilo, HI 96720}

45: 

46: \altaffiltext{$\wedge$}{The Department of Astonomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637}

47: 

48: \altaffiltext{$\star$}{Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132}

49: 

50: \defcitealias{abr04}{Paper~I}

51: \defcitealias{gla04}{Paper~III}

52: \defcitealias{mcc04}{Paper~IV}

53: \defcitealias{abr07}{Paper~VIII}

54: 

55: 

56: \begin{abstract}

57: We present the results of NICMOS imaging of a sample of 19  high mass passively evolving galaxies 

58: with $1.2<z<2$, taken primarily from the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (GDDS).

59: Around $80\%$ of galaxies in our GDDS sample have spectra dominated by stars with 

60: ages $\gtrsim1$~Gyr.  Our rest-frame $R$-band images show

61: that most of these objects have compact regular morphologies which follow

62: the classical R$^{1\slash 4}$~law.  These galaxies scatter along a tight sequence in the size vs. 

63: surface brightness parameter space which defines the Kormendy relation. Around one-third ($3\slash 10$)

64: of the massive red objects in the GDDS sample are extraordinarily compact, with effective radii under one kiloparsec. 

65: Our NICMOS observations allow the detection of such systems more robustly

66: than is possible with optical (rest-frame UV) data, and while similar systems

67: have been seen at $z\ga2$, this

68: is the first time such systems have been detected in a rest-frame optical survey

69: at $1.2<z<2$.

70: We refer to these compact galaxies as `red nuggets', and note that similarly compact massive galaxies

71: are completely absent in the nearby Universe.

72: We introduce a new `stellar mass Kormendy relation' 

73: (stellar mass density vs size) which we use to single out the effects of size 

74: evolution from those of luminosity and color evolution in stellar populations.

75: The $1< z < 2$ passive galaxies have mass densities that are an order

76: of magnitude larger then early type galaxies today and are comparable to the compact distant red

77: galaxies at $2 < z < 3$. 

78: We briefly consider mechanisms for size evolution in contemporary models

79: focusing on equal-mass mergers and adiabatic expansion driven by stellar mass loss. 

80: Neither of these mechanisms appears able to transform the high-redshift Kormendy relation

81: into its local counterpart, leaving the origin and fate of these compact `red nuggets' unresolved.

82: 

83: \bigskip

84: \end{abstract}

85: 

86: \keywords{galaxies:~elliptical, galaxies:~fundamental parameters, galaxies:~evolution}

87: 

88: \section{Introduction}

89: 

90: The formation mechanism of elliptical galaxies has long been controversial and 

91: remains a key test of more general galaxy formation models. The original `nature' (\citet{elbs62} monolithic collapse) vs. `nurture' (formation through mergers, \citep[e.g.,][]{schweizer87,searle78,tt72}

92: debate is still with us, but is now set in a  $\Lambda$CDM cosmological 

93: context which attempts to connect the stellar component of galaxies to an underlying

94: evolutionary picture for the clustering of dark matter halos. Testing this model requires

95: studying the evolution of galaxies over a large redshift range.

96: 

97: A wide range of selection 

98: techniques have been effective in selecting galaxies in various redshift ranges 

99: on the basis of their current star formation rates (e.g. Lyman break galaxies, sub-mm sources

100:  etc), or from the spectral signatures of passively evolving old stellar populations 

101: (e.g., extremely red objects (EROs) and other color selections). 

102: The most massive local elliptical galaxies have the oldest stellar populations 

103: \citep{ght84}, so identifying the progenitors of local early-type

104: galaxies within the high-redshift galaxy population is of particular interest.

105: There is a consensus that the mass density in the 

106: red sequence is evolving strongly in the $1<z<2$ range (\citealp[GDDS Paper VIII,][]{abr07}; \citealp[GDDS Paper III,][]{gla04}; \citealp{fon04,ru03}), 

107: a process that continues at redshifts below unity as well \citep{fab07,bell04}, although the

108: magnitude of the evolution is uncertain \citep{brown07,chen03}. 

109: Massive morphologically-confirmed

110: elliptical galaxies have been found up to 

111: $z=2$ (\citealp[GDDS Paper IV,][] {mcc04}; \citealp{cim04}) with

112: spectra consistent with formation epochs up to 

113: $z>5$. These observations were in  

114: in direct contradiction with early  $\Lambda$CDM

115: models where stellar mass assembly traced the build

116: up of cold dark matter haloes, 

117: although additional feedback mechanisms

118: on the baryons have more recently been able to better account 

119: for this \citep[e.g.,][]{KJS06}. A

120: complication recently added to this picture is the observation that

121: the space density of 

122: ellipticals is found to evolve strongly over $1<z<2$ \citepalias{abr07} even while their 

123: stellar populations evolve weakly, suggesting that one must

124: be careful to decouple morphological evolution from evolution of the

125: underlying stellar populations. This is seen at higher redshifts

126: also, where

127: the paucity of passively evolving galaxies at $z>2$ in deep $J-K$ and 

128: 3.5~$\mu$m selected samples \citep{kr06,la05,cim02} shows that the

129: $assembly$ epoch for the red sequence may be decoupled from the epoch

130: of the earliest star formation.  Studies of star formation history and morphology can only go so

131: far in unraveling the puzzle of galaxy formation; dynamical and chemical probes are 

132: needed to connect progenitors to descendants.  Clustering signatures offer one dynamical

133: approach to connecting progenitors to descendants and the strong clustering of the 

134: passive red galaxies \citep{dad05a,dad04,brown03,mcc01} strongly suggest 

135: that they are linked to today's massive ellipitical galaxies. 

136: 

137: Theoretical attempts to explain these observations

138: have resulted in greatly improved  $\Lambda$CDM models which 

139: decouple mass assembly from this �stellar population downsizing�. An example is the semi-analytic model of \citet{dlb07}. Here the small ellipticals and their stars form early 

140: by disc mergers. Massive ellipticals can then grow bigger and more numerous at late times 

141: through dissipationless or �dry� merging. This may even have been observed \citep{bell06a} though there is some disagreement as to whether the $\Lambda$CDM  merger rate is high 

142: enough \citep{bte07}. 

143: At this stage it is perhaps fair to say that dry merging simulations show that it does not

144: disrupt elliptical scaling relations  \citep{bk06,bk05,gva03} as one might naively expect. However

145: only a limited number of simulations of this process have been done and they

146: have not yet been incorporated into cosmological models in a detailed way

147: such that they can be compared with data (e.g., numbers, sizes and masses of galaxies).

148: Further it is not clear that a dry

149: merging hierarchy consistent with cosmological downsizing can also be made consistent

150: with the evolving

151: mass-metallicity relation \citep{pip08}. 

152: A contrasting picture is painted by \citet{na07} using a 

153: SPH model of individual systems. They argue for a formation mode dominated by something 

154: very close to early monolithic collapse, but in a  $\Lambda$CDM  cosmological context, with mergers 

155: (along with accretion) playing only a minor role in stellar mass growth at late times. 

156: 

157: High spatial resolution studies of the morphologies and structures of passive galaxies offer one approach to 

158: gauging the importance of recent major merger events. 

159: A number of studies with the {\em Hubble 

160: Space Telescope} (HST) have shown that half or more of red galaxies in color-selected 

161: samples have simple early type morphologies. Most of these studies are confined to 

162: redshifts of $\sim1.5$ and less, and the early-type fraction varies from $\sim50\%$ 

163: to $70\%$ \citep{mou04,yan03}. At higher redshifts a significant fraction

164: of the red galaxies appear to be discs (e.g., \citetalias{abr07}, \citealp{fon04}). Understanding the connection

165: between these two classes of objects naturally focuses on the

166: importance of mergers, since nearly equal-mass mergers are thought to transform discs into spheroids.

167: Mergers, both gas-rich and dissipationless, 

168: are also thought to be important in the growth of the red sequence  and 

169: evidence, both direct and indirect, supports that this is occuring at intermediate and low redshifts \citep[e.g.,][and the references therein]{bell06b}.

170: It appears that much of the high-redshift merging activity may

171: be of the dissipationless variety where the main effect of merging is to reorganize existing

172: stellar population {\em without} triggering new star formation. It is

173: difficult to envision how this might operate unless the merging systems

174: are themselves gas-poor, which is not generally expected \citep{van05}. In any case,

175: the signatures of such `dry' mergers are difficult to detect at high redshifts.

176: 

177: Recently, several imaging studies have shown that red galaxies at $z>1$ appear smaller than their likely present-day descendants

178: with the same stellar mass \citep{lon07,cim08}. The implications of these observations are seen most clearly in the 

179: structural and dynamical scaling relations, 

180: the Fundamental Plane and its projections (the Faber-Jackson (1976) and Kormendy (1977) 

181: relations). In the present paper we explore the nature of the Kormendy relation,

182: (mean surface brightness within the effective radius, $\langle\mu\rangle_e$,

183: versus effective radius, R$_e$). This is

184: the most observationally accessible projection of the fundamental plane at high-redshift.

185: Our analysis spans the redshift range

186: $1.2 < z < 2$ using HST NICMOS observations of a sample of quiescent high-redshift galaxies

187: taken mainly from the  Gemini Deep Deep Survey \citep[GDDS Paper I,][]{abr04}.

188: We present NICMOS F160W images for ten of the twenty $z>1.3$ passive red galaxies 

189: from \citetalias{mcc04}. These systems all have spectra dominated by old stellar populations. 

190: This extends to higher redshifts ($z>1.7$) than the earlier NICMOS work of \citet{lon07} from the Munich Near-IR Cluster Survey \citep[MUNICS,][]{dr01}. We 

191: also independently analyze the archival NICMOS data of \citet{lon07} in 

192: the redshift range $1.2 < z < 1.7$ to supplement our sample and confirm their

193: findings. At the higher redshifts previous findings of compact galaxies were based on optical data obtained with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) onboard HST \citep{cim08}. 

194: Our use of NICMOS allows us to more robustly show that the old components in the galaxies are truly compact. 

195: Finally, we are able to unify the optical and infrared work by introducing a new `stellar mass Kormendy relation' 

196: which we use to  better quantify evolution in the sizes of early-type galaxies as a function of stellar mass over the redshift range $1<z<2$. 

197: We briefly examine the likelihood that dry mergers explain such size evolution, and examine whether an

198: alternative process, adiabatic expansion, might be more important.

199: We describe the observations in section~\ref{obs}, our analysis in section~\ref{analysis}, 

200: and present our results in section~\ref{res}. In section~\ref{disc} we discuss the

201: implications of our observations for simple models for galaxy size

202: growth. Throughout we use standard cosmological parameters; H$_0=70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$, 

203: $\Omega_\textrm{m}=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$. Unless stated

204: otherwise, all magnitudes are based on the AB system.

205: 

206: \section{Description of the Observations}\label{obs}

207: \subsection{Sample definition}\label{sdef} 

208: 

209: Our sample of galaxies was taken mainly from the GDDS, crafted to sample 

210: the galaxy population in the critical $1<z<2$ interval with an emphasis on red 

211: galaxies \citepalias{abr04}. While modest in area (120 square arcminutes), the survey is spread over 

212: four independent and representative sightlines. Redshifts for $\sim 300$ galaxies brighter 

213: than $I(\textrm{Vega}) = 24.5$ were obtained from 30-hour long integrations using 

214: the GMOS spectrometer on Gemini North. This magnitude limit corresponds to the stellar mass of 

215: $2.5\times 10^{10}$~M$_\sun$ for a galaxy with the redshift of formation $z_f=10$ and maximally old stellar population observed at redshift $z=1.5$ \citepalias{gla04} . 

216: We classified the galaxies on the basis of their spectra, depending on whether they were dominated by active star formation, stars 

217: older than  $\sim1$~Gyr, intermediate age ($0.3-1$~Gyr) populations, or a mix of these 

218: types. Of the 302 galaxies with redshifts, 47 have spectra dominated by 

219: old stars, and twenty of these lie at redshifts beyond 1.3. Spectra of these twenty

220: galaxies and estimates of their ages and formation redshifts are presented in 

221: \citetalias{mcc04}. Deep $I$-band images of the GDDS galaxies at $z<1.7$ with the 

222: ACS on HST reveal that the correlation between spectral 

223: type, and hence stellar content, and morphological class seen at present is strong at these 

224: redshifts. Nearly all of the GDDS galaxies with passive spectral classes have compact 

225: morphologies consistent with early Hubble types, while the actively star forming 

226: galaxies have a morphologies that range from simple disks to complex structures indicative 

227: of ongoing mergers. The GDDS galaxies discussed in this paper are a subset of the GDDS 

228: galaxies having spectra dominated by old stars (class ``001'' from \citetalias{abr04}) 

229: and $z>1.3$.  The key properties of this sample are given in Table~\ref{tab1}.

230: 

231: Our primary sample of ten galaxies is drawn from the GDDS and determined by the number of

232: available orbits and the desired depth of NICMOS imaging. The targets were selected randomly,

233: with the exception of the two (12-5869 and 12-5592) that could be covered in a single

234: pointing. We also analyzed archival data from

235: the MUNICS survey for nine additional galaxies with properties similar to those of

236: our GDDS sample. \citet{lon05} analyzed spectrophotometric data set for these galaxies from the near-infared spectroscopic  follow-up of a complete sample of bright ($K<18.5$) EROs ($R-K>5.3$) selected from the

237: MUNICS survey\footnote{This is actually a blank field survey, the intention was to {\em find} high-$z$ clusters from deep wide-field near-IR imaging.}. Low resolution spectroscopic and photometric data  revealed

238: stellar masses greater than $10^{11}$~M$_{\sun}$ and dominant old stellar population for all objects in the sample (see Table~\ref{tab2}). 

239: As will be described below, this additional data provided us with a useful check of our methodology by allowing us to compare results from our analysis pipeline against those published 

240: in \citet{lon07}.  

241: 

242: 

243: \input{tab1.tex}

244: \input{tab2.tex}

245: 

246: \subsection{NICMOS Observations}

247: 

248: The ten GDDS galaxies were observed with Camera 3 on NICMOS using 

249: the F160W filter. Each individual exposure was 896 seconds in duration with multiple samples using 

250: the STEP64 read pattern. A single orbit contained three exposures and we observed 

251: each target over four HST orbits for a total integration time of 10740 seconds. Two

252: of the fields overlapped and the images for targets 12-5869 and 12-5592 have twice the

253: exposure time of the others. These objects are discussed in detail in 

254: \citet{mcc07}.  We dithered in non-integer pixel steps between each 

255: exposure. The individual frames were dark corrected, sky subtracted and combined using 

256: the DRIZZLE algorithm \citep{fh02} with a final pixel size of $0\farcs12$. 

257: Residual sky levels in the final mosaics were derived from Gaussian fits to a histogram 

258: of sky values and were subtracted.

259: 

260: As noted above, we also re-analyised nine galaxies from the MUNICS

261: sample of red galaxies described in \citet{lon07}. The MUNICS data set was obtained using Camera 

262: 2 on NICMOS, and is thus more finely sampled, and somewhat shallower, than our NIC3 images.

263: As described below, analyzing this NIC2 data allowed us to explore, and ultimately rule out, 

264: the possibility that the coarser sampling of our NIC3 data might lead to poor model fits and

265: spurious sizes.  We retrieved the pipeline-processed individual NIC2 images from the

266: HST archive. We then corrected each image for residual pedestal effects and combined them

267: into mosaics using the DRIZZLE algorithm with a final pixel size of $0\farcs05$.

268: The properties of the nine galaxies in this sample are summarized in Table~2.

269: 

270: \section{Analysis}\label{analysis}

271: 

272: \subsection{Surface brightness profiles}

273: 

274: \begin{figure*}[htp]

275: \epsscale{1}\plotone{f1.eps}

276: \caption{NIC3 images and the results of our 2D fitting with \texttt{Galfit} for 

277: our sample of 10 GDDS galaxies with $1.3 < z < 2$ and spectra dominated by old stars. The three columns present 

278: the drizzled F160W image, the best fitting R$^{1\slash 4}$ model, and the residuals. The residual images

279: have been scaled by a factor of 10 compared to the data and models to bring out faint

280: features.  The bars at the bottom are one arcsecond in length. }

281: \label{f1}

282: \end{figure*}

283: 

284: \begin{figure*}[htp]

285: \epsscale{1}\plotone{f2.eps}

286: \caption{NIC2 images and the results of our 2D fitting with \texttt{Galfit}  

287: of the six galaxies from \citet{lon07}.

288: The three columns present the galaxy, the best fitting R$^{1\slash 4}$ model, and the residuals. The residual images 

289: have been scaled by a factor of 10 compared to the data and models to bring out

290: faint features. The bars at the bottom are one arcsecond in length. }

291: \label{f2}

292: \end{figure*}

293: 

294: 

295: Using the \texttt{Galfit} software package \citep{pe02}, we derived 

296: two-dimensional (2D) surface brightness profiles by fitting synthetic galaxy images to

297: our data using a 

298: range of surface brightness profiles, ellipticities and orientations. A series of models 

299: were constructed using exponential surface brightness profiles, de Vaucouleurs R$^{1\slash 4}$

300: profiles and the more general R$^{1\slash  n}$ S\'ersic profiles.

301: We did not consider more general fitting laws due to the relatively small range of radii ($0\farcs12-2\arcsec$, or

302: $1-17$~kpc at $z=1.5$)  covered by our observations. Models with a range of scale lengths and eccentricities 

303: were convolved with the Point Spread Function (PSF) of the observations and subtracted 

304: from the NICMOS images.  We used PSFs derived from well-detected 

305: unsaturated stars in each NIC3 field rather than the TinyTim simulations as we found the 

306: former produced better fits.  The residuals were computed and the model parameters were 

307: iterated to minimize the square of the residuals within the box 

308: of $8\farcs4\times8\farcs4$ centered on each galaxy. The initial guess for the

309: centroid was the position of the highest intensity pixel within the fitting box, and the

310: total magnitude was estimated according to the total intensity confined in this box.

311: Both initial guesses were made after masking out of the neighbouring sources. 

312: The root mean square (RMS) image

313: was used to give relative weights to the background pixels during the fitting. By using

314: different stars the width of the NIC3 PSF was

315: allowed to vary to include the effects of spatial and temporal variations in the NIC3

316: PSF. Changing the PSF had very little impact on the derived effective radii in

317: all cases. The best-fit models for all galaxies in the sample are presented in

318: Figure~\ref{f1} (middle column) along with the residual images

319: (last column). Parameters of the best-fit R$^{1\slash 4}$ and R$^{1\slash n}$

320: profiles for each galaxy are given in Table~\ref{tab3}. 

321:  The listed minima of reduced $\chi^2$ are well below unity, 

322: suggesting that the flux uncertainties introduced by the RMS images are overestimated.  

323: We performed the same morphological analysis on the MUNICS galaxies \citep{lon07}. 

324: The NIC2 PSF used for modeling 2D profiles of these objects was derived from the TinyTim simulations. 

325: The resulting best-fit R$^{1\slash 4}$ profiles are graphically illustrated 

326: in Figure~\ref{f2}. The parameters obtained are listed in Table~\ref{tab4}, along with the results from \citet{lon07} for comparison. 

327: The reduced $\chi^2$ are again below unity, but the values obtained for our best fit are very similar to the ones obtained for \citet{lon07} parameters, except for the total F160W magnitudes where the difference is greater then $1\sigma$. The reasons for this discrepancy may be the simulated PSF we used for 2D fitting and the different methods applied for background subtraction.  Also, resulting R$^{1\slash 4}$ fit  effective radius R$_e$ and surface brightness $\langle\mu\rangle_e$  for objects S2F1\_142, S7F5\_45, S2F1\_633, and S2F1\_443 differ for more then $1\sigma$ from the previously reported ones. When fitted with R$^{1\slash n}$ profiles, the best fits for the three of these objects -  S2F1\_142,  S2F1\_633, and S7F5\_45 - have lower indices $n$ than listed in \citet{lon07} - 2 instead of 3.5, 2.5 instead of 4.1, and 1.5 instead of 2, respectively. On the other hand, the best fit R$^{1\slash n}$ profile for S2F1\_443 has index $n=2.8$, higher than $n=1.9$ reported by \citet{lon07}. For the rest of the MUNICS sample the difference in the goodness of fit for R$^{1\slash 4}$ profile between our and \citet{lon07} analysis is $\Delta(\chi^2)\lesssim0.2$. 

328: 

329: 

330: \begin{figure*}[htp]

331: \epsscale{2}\plotone{f3.eps}

332: \caption{Upper panels: major axis surface brightness profiles in the F160W band for each galaxy 

333: (squares), with R$^{1\slash 4}$ (green line) best-fit profile, R$^{1\slash n}$ (red line) best-fit profile, and a PSF profile (blue dashed line) overploted.  

334: The step used to present isophotal surface brightness corresponds to the pixel scale of our drizzled NIC3 images (0\farcs12). The limiting surface brightness in each panel presents (roughly) 5$\sigma$ limit for our observations. The lower part of each panel shows the residual differences between the data points and the model fits, 

335: with the $1~\sigma$ errors on the data shown for comparison.}

336: \label{f3}

337: \end{figure*}

338: 

339: As a consistancy check, we also determined one-dimensional (1D) azimuthally averaged radial 

340: surface brightness profiles for each galaxy and for the corresponding  models resulting from 

341: its 2D profile fits. These 1D radial profiles were extracted using the approach developed by \citet{jed87} as implemented

342: in IRAF \citep{tody93}.  Integrated magnitudes were determined within a series of elliptical isophotes,

343: the spacing of which grows with radius. We masked objects closer than $10^{\arcsec}$

344: before determining the surface brightness profiles of the galaxies. 

345: In most cases we are able to determine the profile over roughly six magnitudes of surface 

346: brightness and to radii of $1\farcs5$, or $\sim13$~kpc at $z = 1.5$. 

347: The $5\sigma$ limiting surface brightness for most of our observations is $\mu_{F160}\approx23$ mag~arcsec$^{-2}$;

348: the data for 12-5869 and 12-5592 reach approximately 0.3 magnitudes

349: deeper.  This surface brightness limit corresponds to $\mu_{r}\approx20$ mag~arcsec$^{-2}$ ($\mu_{r}\approx20.3$ mag~arcsec$^{-2}$ for 12-5869 and 12-5592) 

350: for a galaxy at redshift $z=1.5$ that is formed at $z_f=6$ with exponentially declining SFR and $e$-folding time $\tau=0.1$~Gyr. 

351: Surface brightness profiles were determined in a similar fashion for each star that served as a local measure of the PSF.  Azimuthally averaged surface brightness profiles for all of our GDDS

352: objects are presented in Figure~\ref{f3},  with the profiles of best-fitting 2D models 

353: and a PSF profile shown as solid lines and a dashed line, respectively. Figure~\ref{f3}  

354: confirms that all galaxies in our GDDS sample are well resolved, except for the target 12-6072 that seems only 

355: marginally resolved when compared to the PSF 1D profile. The profiles are smooth in nearly all cases, the exception being object 15-4367 which

356: shows a step at $\rm{a}=1\farcs5$.  

357: Careful examination of this obejct's NIC3 image revealed that it was not perfectly symmetric and harboured a weak disk. 

358: The best R$^{1\slash n}$ profile index of $\sim2$ confirms these findings. 

359: In addition, 15-4367 has a very faint neighbouring object that had to be masked out before fitting. 

360: These two effects produced the step in its 1D profile seen in Fig.~\ref{f3}.

361: 

362: \input{tab3.tex}

363: \input{tab4.tex}

364: 

365: 

366: 

367: In order to estimate the errors on parameters obtained by our 2D and 1D fitting procedures, we 

368: undertook a series of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations which incorporated all the sources

369: of systematic and random errors we were able to identify.  We constructed a set of galaxy images from

370: our best-fit model for each galaxy and convolved these with a range of PSFs (i.e., PSFs obtained 

371: from different stars) and added these to the background images. We dithered the position image 

372: about the central value to explore the importance of binning, and used RMS images to construct

373: 2D arrays of random numbers to capture poisson noise and structure in the sky background. 

374: Each image constructed in this way went through the same fitting procedure as 

375: the real galaxy image from our sample. The standard deviations of resulting parameters are 

376: shown as the error estimates reported in Table~\ref{tab3}. The reduced $\chi^2$ values for 

377: the best fits to the MC simulations are of the order of unity and larger then reduced 

378: $\chi^2$ of the best fits to the data, which makes our error estimates very conservative.

379: 

380: 

381: \subsection{K-corrections and cosmological dimming}  

382: 

383: Our analysis requires comparison between the properties of our $1.2 < z < 2$ samples

384: observed at 1.6~$\mu$m ($H$-band) to those of present-day galaxies observed at visible

385: wavelengths. In order to make a proper comparison, we need to transform

386: the various data sets to a common bandpass and apply a K-correction.

387: We computed appropriate spectral energy distributions (SEDs) using

388: PEGASE-HR spectral synthesis models \citep{lb04}. The

389: model that we used is based on the \citet{bal03} initial mass function (IMF), solar metallicity, and an exponentially declining

390: star formation rate with a time scale of $\tau = 0.1$~Gyr, very similar to a single burst.

391: The typical ages of GDDS and MUNICS passive galaxies at $1.2 < z < 2$ are $3-4$~Gyr (\citetalias{mcc04}, \citealp{lon05}) and

392: we used a 4~Gyr model to approximate their SED. It is important to emphasize that the correction needed to reduce our $H$-band

393: data to rest-frame SDSS-$r$ is remarkably insensitive to 

394: SED shape since

395: redshifted $H$-band closely matches rest-frame SDSS-$r$ at $z\sim1.5$.

396: The photometry for the two samples is listed in Tables~\ref{tab3} and \ref{tab4}.

397: Cosmological surface brightness dimming will reduce the observed surface brightness

398: and these must be corrected by $(1 + z)^4$ to transform them to the rest-frame.

399: 

400: \section{Results}\label{res}

401: 

402: \subsection{Morphologies of Passive Galaxies at $z>1.3$}

403: 

404: All of the objects in our NICMOS F160W sample (shown in

405: Figures~\ref{f1} and \ref{f2}) have compact morphologies and none 

406: show obvious evidence of interactions, such as double nuclei or disturbed isophotes 

407: at bright levels. The star-forming massive galaxies drawn from the GDDS sample, 

408: by contrast, exhibit a wide range of disturbed morphologies as shown in \citetalias{abr07}.

409: The intermediate age and composite population systems primarily have disk morphologies, 

410: while the passive galaxies at $z<1.3$ discussed in \citetalias{abr07} exhibit a preponderance 

411: for compact and regular morphologies.  Six of the 10 GDDS galaxies in the present sample

412: appear to be early types with R$^{1\slash n}$ profile index $n>2.5$ (Table~\ref{tab3}), while the four potential disk systems in our $z>1.3$ passive sample appear 

413: to have prominent bulges. Thus $60\%$ of our GDDS sample defined by spectral properties 

414: have pure early type morphologies, 

415: and this fraction rises to $90\%$ when the prominent bulges with very weak disks are also taken into account as early type object.

416: To a first approximation, our NICMOS Camera 3 images extend the correlation between spectra indicative of old stellar populations and 

417: compact early-type morphologies from $z \sim 1.3$ to $z \sim 2$. This is not surprising 

418: given previous indications in this direction from smaller samples \citep[e.g.,][]{cim04}. 

419: 

420: The correlation between color and morphological type is not as strong for the red 

421: galaxies, as a number of studies have shown. At redshifts near unity, red $R-K$ 

422: or $I-K$ selected samples contain roughly as many disk as early-type galaxies 

423: \citep[e.g.,][etc.]{mou04,yan03}. At higher redshifts red selected 

424: samples also show a mix of morphologies, as shown for the $z\sim1.5$ range in 

425: \citetalias{abr07} and at  $z>2$ by \citet{la05}, \citet{sto04}, and others. 

426: 

427: \subsection{Surface Brightness Profiles \& Sizes}

428: 

429: Azimuthally averaged surface brightness profiles presented in 

430: Figure~\ref{f3} confirm that six of our 10 GDDS galaxies are well-fit by R$^{1\slash 4}$ profiles.

431: The effective radii for these six objects range from as small as $0\farcs05$ to as large as $0\farcs42$, or

432: from 0.4 to 3.6~kpc. The median effective radius is $0\farcs26$ or 2.2~kpc.

433: As Figure~\ref{f1} shows, for the most part the 2-D models fit the data well and the residuals are not

434: significantly greater than the sky noise. In 12-8895 and 12-5869 there appear

435: to be some non-axisymmetric structures within the central one arcsecond, while

436: in 12-6072 the model is too peaked.  Four of our 10 GDDS galaxies are clearly better 

437: fit by R$^{1\slash n}$ profiles with indicies near 2, rather than the R$^{1\slash 4}$~law. These are: 12-6072, 12-8025, 

438: 15-4367 and 15-5005. As can be seen 

439: in Figure~\ref{f3}  the significance with which the R$^{1\slash 4}$~law fit is rejected 

440: in these objects

441: is low except in the case of 12-8025 where the outer isophotes depart strongly from 

442: the R$^{1\slash 4}$~law profile.

443: 

444: The effective radii of the GDDS galaxies are smaller than those of present-day cluster

445: ellipticals and early-type field galaxies. The median effective radius for low redshift cluster ellipticals is $\sim 4$~kpc 

446: \citep{jor95,schombert86}, and the field early type galaxies at $z\sim 0.5$

447: from the CFRS \citep{sch99} have a fairly similar median size. The hosts of luminous radio galaxies

448: at $z \sim 0.8 - 1$ studied by \citet{zi03} probably represent the most massive end

449: of the field \& group early type populations at these redshifts. Their sizes are also

450: similar to the lower redshift samples and larger than the GDDS elliptical galaxies that have median effective radius of 2.2~kpc. 

451: In contrast, the distant red galaxies (DRGs), defined by their $J-K$ colors, at $2 < z < 3$ have a median 

452: effective radius of 1.4~kpc \citep{to07}, somewhat smaller than the passive GDDS galaxies in

453: our sample at $z \sim 1.7$. 

454:  

455: The sizes of the GDDS passive galaxies appear to support a fairly strong evolution

456: in scale length among the early type galaxies in the $1 < z < 3$ interval. 

457: A mundane potential explanation for this result is that the under-sampling of the 

458: NIC3 PSF data has led to unreliable fits. We can

459: rule out this hypothesis on the basis of three tests. Firstly, we have

460: re-fitted the six galaxies with more finely sampled NIC2 data

461: from the \citet{lon07} sample, and we recover very similar fits (see Table ~\ref{tab4}). 

462: These fits are shown in Figure~\ref{f4} using dashed lines to join the values of points obtained by \citet{lon07}

463: to those obtained by us. Secondly, we have undertaken detailed MC

464: simulations (used to set our error bars in Figure~\ref{f4}) based on

465: generating idealized over-sampled images which are randomly displaced

466: by sub-pixel shifts before being binned to NIC3 resolution and re-fitted.

467: Lastly, two of our objects - 12-5592 and 22-1983 - were observed in the F814W band with ACS on HST.

468: The sizes that we measure for these galaxies, albeit at shorter rest-frame

469: wavelengths, are in good agreement with the sizes derived from our NIC3 data.

470: Thus we are confident that our size determinations are robust.

471: 

472: The strong correation between mass and size,

473: as measured by the effective radius, makes comparisons between the average or median

474: properties of different samples imprecise measures of evolution. The lower redshift samples

475: \citep[$z<1$][]{jor95,schombert86,sch99} cover a broad range of the parent luminosity functions while

476: the higher redshift objects ($1<z<3$),

477: including the DRGs, the GDDS and MUNICS samples (\citealp{to07}, \citetalias{gla04}, \citealp{lon05}), sample the 

478: high mass end of the galaxy population and thus are biased to large values in their median sizes.  

479: This further strengthens the conclusion that there is strong evolution in the characteristic

480: sizes of early type galaxies above $z \sim 1$. The evolution in galaxy sizes can be further 

481: quantified by examining the size-mass correlation and its evolution, as is discussed in section~\ref{sizemass}.

482: 

483: \subsection{The Kormendy Relation to $z = 2$}

484: 

485: \begin{figure*}[htp]

486: \epsscale{1.5}\plotone{f4.eps}

487: \caption{Mean rest frame Gunn-$r$ surface brightness within effective radius R$_e$ as a function 

488: of R$_e$ (Kormendy relation) for objects at redshifts $1.2<z<1.9$ (GDDS and MUNICS samples) and 

489: for the sample of local galaxies \citep[SDSS,]{ber03}. 

490: The solid line is the best-fit relation to the SDSS objects. The dashed lines represent the expected luminosity evolution of the 

491: local (SDSS, solid line) relation at $z=1.5$ for galaxies formed at $z_{form}=6,2$ 

492: with exponentially declining SFR and $e$-folding time $\tau=0.1$~Gyr. Different symbols 

493: correspond to different samples, and circled triangles denote  

494: re-fitted MUNICS sample. Left panel shows R$^{1\slash 4}$~profile parameters for the galaxies from the GDDS and MUNICS samples, while the right one

495: shows their best-fit R$^{1\slash n}$~profile parameters.}     

496: \label{f4}

497: \end{figure*}

498: 

499: 

500: In Figure~\ref{f4} we present the rest-frame $r$-band Kormendy 

501: relation, $\langle\mu\rangle_e$ vs. R$_e$, for the GDDS and MUNICS samples. As noted earlier,

502: our construction of this diagram is particularly robust because our

503: observed $H$-band observations match rest-frame $r$-band 

504: at $z=1.5$ and hence there is negligible residual K-correction uncertainty. 

505: We have not applied any evolutionary corrections to the observed surface brightness values.

506: Figure~\ref{f4} includes the corresponding distribution for present-day early-type 

507: galaxies from the SDSS \citep{ber03}.

508: 

509: Figure~\ref{f4} shows that the tightness and

510: slope of the Kormendy relation in the GDDS + MUNICS sample is

511: similar to that defined by the local relation. There is a hint that

512: the high-redshift slope may be slightly 

513: steeper than the local value, but the difference is not significant. 

514: While the high-redshift ellipticals fall along a tight Kormendy relation, the relationship itself is 

515: offset to higher surface brightness from the low-redshift reference sample. 

516: The simplest explanation for this is that is that we are seeing galaxies nearer 

517: to their epoch of formation, when they are brighter, and thus the Kormendy relation is shifted 

518: upwards. This evolutionary effect cannot fully explain the evolution in the Kormendy relation.

519: The offset in surface brightness compared to the

520: $z \sim 0$ sample is too large ($\sim2.5$ mag) to be explained by pure luminosity evolution of stellar 

521: populations unless the redshift of formation is very recent ($z_{\rm form}\lesssim2$),

522: which is inconsistent with both their colors and spectra \citepalias[see][]{mcc04} which 

523: argue that these are old systems with $z_{\rm form}\gtrsim4$. In the latter case,

524: the maximum dimming allowed is 1 to 1.5~mag, depending on the selected IMF and the star formation history.  In addition, we also see from this figure that, 

525: in spite of their large masses, typical high-z ellipticals are

526: substantially smaller than their local counterparts.  In contrast to the median effective radius for the GDDS sample of 2.2~kpc, early-type galaxies in the SDSS sample presented in 

527: Fig.~\ref{f4} span the range of effective radii with the median value of 4.9~kpc. Finally,

528: we see that three out of ten galaxies in the GDDS sample are

529: `ultra-compact' (R$_e<1$ kpc), and thus are of much higher stellar density. 

530: \citet{cim08} found a similar fraction from ACS imaging and estimate that the number density of 

531: comparably dense objects at $z=0$ is up to $10^4$ times lower than at $z=1.5$.  

532: In contrast, in the MUNICS sample of elliptical galaxies ($1.2<z<1.7$) no `ultra-compact' objects are found.

533: As we will discuss in the following section, our findings lead us to also conclude that 

534: strong size evolution (a factor of 2 or more) is the additional ingredient needed to explain 

535: the shift in the Kormendy relation. 

536: 

537: \subsection{The Mass-Size Relation and the Stelar Mass Kormendy Relation}\label{sizemass}

538: 

539: As the previous section illustrates, a proper comparison between galaxy samples at high

540: and low redshifts nearly always entails corrections for luminosity evolution. We can, however, improve on the standard procedure of

541: using simple models of luminosity evolution by using multi-color

542: SED data to fit stellar  population models and derive stellar masses for the galaxies in question

543: (this was done and described in \citetalias{gla04} for the GDDS sample). We

544: then recast the data into a new `stellar mass Kormendy relation' which allows a more fundamental

545: comparison. By doing this we are using the complete set of information (the colors) to

546: measure and remove the luminosity evolution. A further advantage to the use of stellar mass is that

547: it allows us to compare optical and near-IR samples and plot them on the same diagram. A possible disadvantage is that 

548: we rely heavily on the mapping from light to stellar mass given by our spectral synthesis modeling, which,

549: in turn, depends on the correctness of our assumptions.  So for

550: example derived masses would be in error if the assumed IMF is

551: evolving rather than static.

552: 

553: We consider two projections of the

554: structural evolution that minimize the impact of luminosity and spectral evolution. The first

555: is the size-mass relation, while the second is the relation between stellar mass 

556: density and size, which we will refer to as the stellar mass Kormendy relation. 

557: In deriving the stellar mass {\em density} we assume

558: that the F160W light traces the stellar mass. 

559: 

560: In Figure~\ref{f5} we plot the size-mass relation for our sample. To enhance the usefulness 

561: of this figure, we augmented our GDDS and MUNICS data using

562: published measurements obtained for passive galaxies in the redshift range $1.1<z<2.0$

563: taken from from two surveys in the HUDF \citep{dad05b,mar06},

564: a survey of six galaxies with dominant old stellar population in the fields of

565: radio-loud quasars \citep{mcg07a,mcg07b},

566: and GMASS \citep{cim08}.  While \citet{mcg07a} use NIC3 F160W observations for their morphological analysis, 

567: GMASS \citep{cim08} and HUDF \citep{dad05b} effective radii were measured by fitting ACS F850LP ($z$ band) galaxy images.

568: We corrected all of the stellar mass determinations to a common IMF, 

569: using \citet{bal03} IMF, according to the relations given in \citet{cim08} and \citetalias{gla04}.

570: Finally, to place our data in a broader context, Figure~\ref{f5} also shows the size-mass

571: relationship for local early-type galaxies in the SDSS \citep{ber03}. We

572: recomputed the stellar masses for the \citet{ber03} SDSS sample using the same prescription applied

573: to the GDDS sample (\citealp{bal08}; \citetalias{gla04}). The derived masses are in good agreement with those of \cite{kau03}. 

574: The size-mass relationship for early-type galaxies

575: shown in Figure~\ref{f5} shows a number of interesting

576: features, the most striking of which is that the high-redshift

577: and low-redshift populations show relatively little overlap. In fact, they seem to describe nearly

578: independent loci in size-mass parameter space, with similar slopes, but

579: with galaxies at $z=1-2$ systematically smaller, at a fixed mass, than galaxies at $z=0$.

580: The error bars on individual data points are rather large, but taken as a whole, only $\sim25\%$ of high

581: redshift early-type galaxies lie in the region of size-mass space occupied by low-redshift systems.

582: 

583: The size-mass relationship of elliptical galaxies at $z\sim0$ is well described by a

584: power law with the same exponent  ($\sim0.5$) as for the early-types at $z\sim1.5$.

585: Galaxies with stellar masses of $8 \times 10^{10}$~M$_{\odot}$, comparable to M$^*$ today,

586: are approximately three times smaller at $z \sim1.5$ than their apparent counterparts today.

587: The number density of  compact galaxies with R$_e<1$~kpc (`red nuggets') in the redshift range $1.1<z<2$

588: is $2\times10^{-5}$~Mpc$^{-3}$. In contrast, number density of these objects in the SDSS sample \citep{ber03} 

589: is $3\times10^{-8}$~Mpc$^{-3}$, three orders of magnitude lower than that for the higher redshift objects. The

590: `red nuggets' in two samples are different with respect to mass, too - the median of GDDS compact galaxies 

591: mass is $10^{11}$~M$_{\sun}$, while the objects of the same compactness  in the local Universe have masses 

592: with ten times lower median (i.e.,~$10^{10}$~M$_{\sun}$). The passive galaxy population at $1.1 < z < 2$ span a similar range in stellar mass as

593: galaxies today ($2 \times 10^{10} - 6\times 10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$) so, at least at the high mass end, the bulk of the evolution 

594: from $z \sim 2$ to $z \sim 0$ appears to be in size rather than mass. 

595: 

596: \begin{figure*}[htp]

597: \epsscale{2}\plotone{f5.eps}

598: \caption{Effective radius $\rm{R}_e$ as a function of stellar mass for five samples of early-type galaxies in the redshift range $1.1<z<2$. Points are color-coded by two redshift ranges (red = $z>1.46$, blue = $z<1.46$).

599: Different symbols correspond to different surveys, with triangles denoting re-fitted object from the MUNICS sample (as in Fig.~\ref{f4}). The

600: size-mass relation for local early-type galaxies in the SDSS is presented with sizes taken from \citet{ber03}, and matched with 

601: masses calculated following \citet{bal08} (black points). Contours represent linearly spaced regions of constant density of galaxies in size-mass parameter space. The solid line is the best-fit relation 

602: to the data points at redshifts $1.1<z<2$.  Three arrows denote the effects that 1:1 dry merger \citep{bk06}, adiabatic expansion with $50\%$ mass loss, and pure size evolution at constant stellar mass would have on the positions of both the least and the most massive galaxy. See text for details.}

603: \label{f5}

604: \end{figure*}

605: 

606: 

607: In Figure~\ref{f6} we plot the projected stellar 

608: mass density within a radius equal to R$_e$ (i.e, $\rho_e=3M_{*}(\rm{R}<\rm{R}_e)\slash (4\pi$R$_e^3$)) versus R$_e$ - the

609: stellar mass Kormendy relation. This projection shows the evolution in the

610: structural properties of the passive early-type galaxies very clearly. The $z > 1.1$ galaxies

611: are offset to smaller radii and dramatically higher projected surface mass densities

612: compared to massive early-type galaxies today.  

613: Compact objects in the local SDSS sample appear less dense since they are less massive than high redshift objects with the same size. 

614: In the density space populated by red nuggets at higher redshifts ($\rho_e>10^{10}$~M$_{\sun}$~kpc$^{-3}$),

615: there are no galaxies in the SDSS sample, implying that number density of these objects at $z=0$ is $\lesssim4\times10^{-9}$~Mpc$^{-3}$.

616: 

617: 

618: In both figures \ref{f5} and \ref{f6} we have color coded the symbols according to redshift into

619: two sub-samples: $1.1 < z < 1.46$ and $1.46 < z < 2$. This splits the sample into two 

620: equal time intervals of duration 1.1~Gyr and nearly equal sample sizes.

621: There is a signifcant diffence in the size distributions in the two sub-samples. In the

622: lower redshift sub-sample 6\slash 18 galaxies, or $\sim 33$\% of the sample, fall within the range

623: of the local sample, while in the high redshift sample, only 4\slash 25, or $\sim 17$\% of the galaxies 

624: fall within the locus of the local systems. Thus it appears that the strongest evolution in size

625: is occuring in the $1 < z < 1.5$ interval, although as we will describe in the

626: next section, the heterogenous nature of the data does not allow us to conclude

627: this with much confidence. A number of other studies \citep[e.g.,][]{treu05} show

628: that $z \sim 1$ early type galaxies have normal sizes and mass densities. 

629: 

630: \section{Discussion}\label{disc}

631: 

632: \begin{figure*}[htp]

633: \epsscale{2}\plotone{f6.eps}

634: \caption{Stellar mass density within the effective radius $\rm{R}_e$ as a function of $\rm{R}_e$ (the "stellar mass Kormendy relation'') for five samples of 

635: early-type galaxies in the redshift range $1.1<z<2$. Symbols are as in Fig.~\ref{f5}. The local 

636: sample of SDSS galaxies is presented with both points and overlaid contours that denote 

637: linearly spaced regions of constant density of galaxies in this parameter space. Dotted lines present the loci of constant total stellar mass, noted on each line in units of M$_{\sun}$. 

638: The solid line is the best-fit relation to the data points at redshifts $1.1<z<2$. Three arrows denote the effects that 1:1 dry merger \citep{bk06}, adiabatic expansion with $50\%$ mass loss, and pure size evolution at constant stellar mass. See text for details.}

639: \label{f6}

640: \end{figure*}

641: 

642: 

643: The key result of this paper are that the sizes and projected mass densities of early-type

644: passively evolving galaxies have changed very significantly since $z \sim 2$. A number of other 

645: studies, noted above, have reached similar conclusions in samples with higher and overlaping

646: redshift intervals. Our analysis has removed much of the uncertainty associated with 

647: evolutionary corrections  in luminosity and spectral shape by dealing with the mass 

648: density rather than surface brightness. 

649: 

650: There are a number of potential explanations for the dramatic evolution in the sizes and 

651: densites of the passive galaxies. If the compact massive galaxies at $z \sim 2$ are to 

652: evolve into massive elliptical galaxies at $z \sim 0$ they must grow by a factor of 

653: $2-3$ in size. The two most plausible paths to this evolution are injection of energy into, or the

654: loss of mass from, the central regions.  One possibility is that mergers input energy into the

655: stellar systems and increase their equilbrium sizes. The quiescient spectra of galaxies

656: in the same stellar mass range at $1 < z < 1.5$ suggest that any such merger be ``dry'' and produce 

657: little star formation and related activity. Dry mergers have been identified as a 

658: likely evolutionary path for

659: the compact massive galaxies at $z > 2$ discussed recently by \cite{van08}.

660: The large stellar masses of the compact passive galaxies at $z < 2$ suggest that equal mass 

661: mergers cannot be ubiquitous at later epochs.  In Figures~\ref{f5} and \ref{f6} we show 

662: vectors that approximate the impact of an equal mass merger, based on the simulations performed by  \citet{bk06}. Galaxies become both 

663: larger and more massive and move primarily along the mass-radius and mass-Kormendy 

664: relations rather than normal to them.  This problem makes this explanation for size

665: evolution unsatisfactory. While there is good evidence for an increase of roughly 

666: a factor of two in the total stellar mass density in red sequence galaxies since $z \sim 1.3$, 

667: this appears to be in the form of new galaxies appearing on the red sequence rather 

668: than mass growth in previously passive systems \citep[e.g.,][]{fab07,bell04}.

669: One could perhaps appeal to many minor mergers to puff up a galaxy's size,  but

670: they would have to all be dry to keep a galaxy on the red sequence and numerous

671: enough to have a significant effect, which seems somewhat contrived.

672: 

673: 

674: It has been pointed out to us (N. Murray, private communication)

675: that adiabatic expansion is an interesting

676: alternative to dry merging for increasing the size of galaxies. This process

677: has long been familiar to stellar dynamicists \citep{hi80} and

678: been verified by numerical simulation \citep[e.g.,][]{bk07}.

679: The process has also been used to model the influence of strong stellar

680: winds in conditioning the Galactic globular cluster distribution \citep{zh02}. In the present context,

681: the potential for adiabatic expansion to explain the existence of massive small ellipticals at 

682: high redshift is developed in a paper by \citet[hereafter MQT]{mu08}. To motivate the present discussion, a basic version of

683: the some of the key theoretical ideas in the latter paper, kindly communicated to us in advance 

684: of publication by the authors, will be applied to the GDDS

685: sample here.

686: 

687: Adiabatic expansion will occur in any relaxed system that is losing

688: mass. As mass is lost the potential becomes shallower,

689: so the system expands in order to relax into a new stable equilibrium.  The amount that a system expands

690: depends on both the extent and speed of the mass loss \citep[see][for details]{zh02}. In general, if a fraction $\frac{\Delta m}{m} = (m_{\rm initial} - m_{\rm final})\slash m_{\rm initial}$ 

691: of the total

692: mass is lost on a dynamical timescale (or longer), the size of the

693: system increases by a factor of approximately $1 \over {1-\frac{\Delta m}{m}}$. If the

694: mass is lost more quickly than the dynamical timescale, then the

695: expansion of the system will be larger than this estimate. It is trivial to show that as the system loses

696: mass the dynamical timescale increases in proportion to $1\over{(1-\frac{\Delta m}{m})^2}$ while the escape 

697: velocity decreases as $1-\frac{\Delta m}{m}$, so there are at least

698: two sources of positive feedback leading to further increase the size

699: as the system evolves. Of course, in the extreme case where a significant fraction of the 

700: total mass is lost on a short timescale, the system may become unbound.

701: 

702: What processes might lead to mass loss in elliptical galaxies?

703: The obvious candidate is stellar winds from sites of active

704: star formation. However, the early-type galaxies being

705: studied here are relatively red and spectroscopically

706: passive, so winds from young stellar populations are

707: unlikely candidates for mass loss. An interesting alternative

708: is mass loss from evolved A and F-type stars, and

709: we have explored this ideas using the following toy model. We model a galaxy

710: as an instantaneous burst with a solar-metallicity

711: stellar population whose main sequence lifetime (as a function of mass) is that given in Table

712: 5.2 of Binney \& Merrifield (1998). We assume that after leaving the main sequence

713: all stars more massive than 8 solar masses wind up as stellar remnants of 1.5 solar

714: mass, and that all stars less than 8 solar masses wind up as remnants with 0.6 solar mass.

715: We also assume that mass loss from stars is never recycled into future star formation

716: and it ouflows far out into the galaxy's potential well, or is lost completely.

717: 

718: \begin{figure*}[htp]

719: \epsscale{1}\plotone{f7.eps}

720: \caption{The mass loss fraction $\frac{\Delta m}{m}$ as a function of population age in~Gyr,

721: for the simple model described in the text. We assume

722: an instantaneous burst of star formation and show $\frac{\Delta m}{m}$

723: as a function of time with three initial

724: mass functions. As expected, the total mass lost is a strong

725: function of the fraction of stars at the high mass end of the IMF.

726: The relative mass loss is small in the age range $1-7$~Gyr (dashed lines).

727: See text for details.}

728: \label{f7}

729: \end{figure*}

730: 

731: 

732: In this case, $\frac{\Delta m}{m}$ as a function of time takes on the form shown in

733: Figure~\ref{f7} for three initial mass functions (Salpeter IMF, Scalo IMF,

734: and the Baldry \& Glazebrook (2003) IMF).

735: Our toy model suggests that  $\frac{\Delta m}{m}$ rises sharply with time until ages of around 2~Gyr,

736: at which point $\frac{\Delta m(t)}{m(t)}$ flattens out, peaking at around 30\% for the

737: Salpeter IMF, and at 50\% for

738: the top-heavy Baldry \& Glazebrook (2003) IMF. Thus

739: the degree of mass loss from a very top-heavy IMF could explain

740: the size growth.

741: This is shown by the arrows in Figures~\ref{f5} and~\ref{f6}, which 

742: show the

743: effects that 1:1 dry merger \citep[cyan arrow]{bk06}, adiabatic expansion with $50\%$ mass loss (magenta

744: arrow), and pure size evolution at constant stellar mass (green arrow) have on the positions of both the least and the 

745: most massive galaxies in our sample. 

746: However, the timescale over which this

747: occurs poses a huge challenge for explaining the size growth entirely by

748: adiabatic expansion. In this paper we study the size distribution of the population 

749: at a time when their the stellar populations

750: are already rather old (see Tables~\ref{tab1} and~\ref{tab2} and discussion in

751: \citetalias{mcc04}) so over the redshift range

752: being probed the galaxies are old enough that the mass loss curves in

753: Figure~\ref{f7} are already nearly flat.

754: Another constraint on the importance of adiabatic

755: expansion is that is does not explain the steady factor

756: of (at least) three

757: growth in the stellar mass density locked up in massive

758: galaxies over the redshift range $1<z<2$

759: reported in \citetalias{mcc04} and in other surveys, \citep[e.g.,][]{dic03,ru06}, especially on the red sequence \citepalias{abr07}.

760: As the typical mass does not appear to evolve (Fig.~\ref{f5})

761: this primarily seems to be an evolution in number.

762: 

763: In spite of the problems noted above,

764: adiabatic expansion does appear

765: attractive because it

766: moves the high-redshift distribution shown

767: in Figure~\ref{f5} 

768: in the right direction to match

769: the low-redshift distribution shown in the

770: figure. This is not the case with 

771: equal-mass dry mergers, which, as shown by the cyan arrows in

772: the figure, and as noted by previous authors \citep{bk06},

773: drive evolution along the Kormendy relation rather

774: than displacing the relation itself.  While a top-heavy IMF loses

775: enough mass to grow the galaxies by the required factor

776: of two over their complete lifetime, the main problem with the adiabatic expansion

777: model is that to explain our observations that mass loss would have to occur over the 

778: age range of $1-7$~Gyr, 

779: over which Fig.~\ref{f7} shows only a $5-10~\%$ effect.  

780: Ages of the GDDS galaxies are taken from

781: Paper IV, and it is worthwhile to

782: consider whether we might have

783: significantly over-estimated the ages

784: of the galaxies in that paper. We think this unlikely

785: for two reasons. Firstly,  because broad-band

786: color-based ages for these galaxies seem consistent with ages

787: inferred from spectra

788: of these systems, which often exhibit photospheric

789: features from old stars. Secondly, because changing

790: to a more top-heavy IMF than the Salpeter IMF

791: used in \citetalias{mcc04} would not result

792: in systematically younger ages. In fact

793: the reverse is true, since 

794: a more top-heavy IMF would tend to produce synthetic spectra which are bluer for a given star formation history at a given age. So to match the observed colors, any fitting routine would compensate by deriving {\em older} ages for the best fit. Quantitatively, we checked the size of this effect by generating models with an exponentially declining star-formation

795: history (e-folding timescale $\tau=1$~Gyr) with various stellar metallicities, using both Salpeter and BG03 IMFs (without extinction). We

796: determined that ages using the (top-heavy) BG03 IMF are $\sim40-50\%$ larger 

797: for galaxies which are found to be $\sim1$~Gyr old using a Salpeter IMF. (Note that 

798: derived metallicities using the BG03 IMF are larger too).

799: 

800: \begin{figure*}[htp]

801: \epsscale{1.5}\plotone{f8.eps}

802: \caption{As for Figure~\ref{f5}, with data from the GOODS\slash DEIMOS and CFRS

803: redshift surveys included. Points corresponding to different redshift bins are presented in separate panels. The solid line is the best-fit relation from 

804: Figure~\ref{f5}.}

805: \label{f8}

806: \end{figure*}

807: 

808: \begin{figure*}[htp]

809: \epsscale{1.5}\plotone{f9.eps}

810: \caption{As for Figure~\ref{f6}, with data from the GOODS\slash DEIMOS and CFRS

811: redshift surveys included. Points corresponding to different redshift bins are presented in separate panels. The solid line is the best-fit relation from 

812: Figure~\ref{f6}.}

813: \label{f9}

814: \end{figure*}

815: 

816: \begin{figure*}[htp]

817: \epsscale{2}\plotone{f10.eps}

818: \caption{Redshift dependence of the stellar mass density within the effective radius $R_e$. Symbols are as in Figures~\ref{f8} and~\ref{f9}. The local sample of SDSS galaxies is presented with both points and overlaid contours that denote linearly spaced regions of constant density of galaxies in this parameter space. Red cross represents the median stellar mass density and the median redshift of the local sample. Limiting stellar mass densities for the 90th percentiles for the SDSS objects with stellar mass densities above and below the median value are given with upper and lower dashed lines, respectively. Following the  discussion on the quality of CFRS imaging in section~\ref{disc} corresponding points are excluded from this fugure.}

819: \label{f10}

820: \end{figure*}

821: 

822: Some constraints on

823: the duty cycle for the size change can be inferred from our observations,

824: by noting that the redshift range spanned

825: by our sample is $1.1<z<2.0$, corresponding to 

826: a spread in time of $\sim2.2$~Gyr. The 

827: division of the sample

828: in half at $z=1.46$ using different

829: symbols in Figures~\ref{f5} and~\ref{f6}

830: subdivides this redshift

831: interval into two equal time bins, each of which

832: is $\sim1.1$~Gyr wide.

833: The  sample shown in Figures~\ref{f5} and~\ref{f6} contains data

834: from a number of different surveys, and it is certainly

835: unwise to attempt to compare the

836: high-redshift and low-redshift subsets 

837: at a detailed level. But it is perhaps

838: worth noting the following

839: very general qualitative

840: trends.

841: Figure~\ref{f5} appears to show that the

842: character of the size-mass distribution

843: is rather

844: different in the $1.1<z<1.46$ and

845: $1.46<z<2.0$

846: intervals, 

847: with neither distribution resembling the local 

848: data distribution closely. This suggests

849: some degree of evolution between the 

850: bins, but with the caveat that these two redshift 

851: bins primarily consist of data from different surveys so the strength 

852: of  the evolution cannot be confidently inferred. 

853: On a more speculative note, it can be argued

854: that nothing in Figure~\ref{f5} rules

855: out the possibility that the high-redshift distribution

856: is evolving into the low-redshift distribution differentially,

857: with different physics operating at the low mass and

858: high mass ends.

859: In fact, some evidence for this is also

860: hinted at 

861: in the figure, which appears to

862: show that the

863: smallest and least massive galaxies lie

864: at $z>1.5$.

865: It is possible that dry mergers may well

866: be growing the smallest and least massive galaxies

867: along the fundamental plane early in a galaxy's

868: life cycle, before some other process takes over

869: and grows them further in some other way.

870: 

871: It is interesting to contrast the data presented

872: in Figures~\ref{f5} and~\ref{f6} with data which spans 

873: the redshift range in between the SDSS 

874: data and our high-redshift observations. 

875: Figures~\ref{f8} and~\ref{f9} 

876: augment the data in Figures~\ref{f5} and~\ref{f6} with

877: intermediate-redshift

878: data taken from the CFRS \citep{sch99, lil95}

879: and GOODS\slash DEIMOS \citep{bte07,treu05} surveys. 

880: Effective radii for the CFRS objects are obtained from the WFPC2 814W images. 

881: Estimates based on the images in three ACS filters 

882: (606W, 814W, and 850W) are available for the 

883: GOODS/DEIMOS sample. All objects shown in the upper three panels  

884: of figures~\ref{f8} and~\ref{f9} have sizes based on 

885: the WFPC2 or ACS 814W imaging that translates 

886: approximately into the rest-frame $V$-band for the 

887: median redshifts in the $0.2<z<0.5$ and $0.5<z<0.7$ panels, 

888: and into the rest-frame $B$-band for the median redshift in 

889: the $0.7<z<1.$ panel. GOODS/DEIMOS objects in 

890: the $1<z<1.46$ panel are presented with the effective radii 

891: in ACS 850W filter (approximately $B$-band rest frame). 

892: The CFRS masses are obtained following \citet{bal08} and using imaging

893: data of relatively low quality. We note that the difference in the 

894: rest-frame wavelengths that are probed at different redshifts makes 

895: it impssible to draw any quantitative conclusions about galaxy size evolution. 

896: However, figures~\ref{f8} and~\ref{f9} show qualitative trends consistent 

897: with smooth evolution over the $0.2<z<2$ range. The dispersion

898: on the size-mass plot in the $0.2<z<1$ regime is large (upper panels in Figures~\ref{f8} and~\ref{f9}), but there seems 

899: to be some evidence for a systematic offest relative to the local

900: trends with the increasing redshift. The GOODS\slash DEIMOS data in Figures~\ref{f8} and~\ref{f9} spans {\em both}

901: the low-redshift and high-redshift loci identified

902: in  each panel of Figures~\ref{f8} and~\ref{f9} by contours and the line of the best fit, respectively. However, the majority of the

903: low-redshift ($0.2<z<0.5$) GOODS\slash DEIMOS data lie closer

904: to the local relation, in contrast to the $0.7<z<1$ panel where the most of the GOODS\slash DEIMOS points are close to the $z\sim1.5$ objects locus. 

905: The CFRS data in the $0.7<z<1$ panel of Figure~\ref{f8} does not seem to follow this trend, and we suggest that it may be due to the

906: shallow imaging of these objects \citep{lil95}. In the lower redshift panels of  Figure~\ref{f8} ($z<0.7$) the positions of the CFRS objects are 

907: consistent with the GOODS\slash DEIMOS dataset. In order to compare the number of high 

908: mass objects at different redshifts, we use a subsample of 68 GOODS/DEIMOS objects with 

909: masses above the GDDS detection limit (see section~\ref{sdef}). 

910: It is interesting to note that relatively few ($14\slash 68$, $\sim21\%$) points

911: from the GOODS\slash DEIMOS subsample have masses

912: greater than $1.5\times10^{11}$~M$_{\sun}$ \citep[M$^{\ast}$ at $1<z<2$,][]{fon06}.

913: In contrast, the high-redshift data set presented in Figures~\ref{f5} and~\ref{f6} includes large fraction

914: of objects with M$_{\star}>$~M$^{\ast}$ -- $18\slash 43$ ($\sim42\%$). 

915: While this could perhaps be consistent with

916: adiabatic mass loss,  the arguments

917: presented in our discussion of Figure~\ref{f7} 

918: are compounded by the data presented in Figures~\ref{f8} and~\ref{f9}

919: which indicates that size growth is still occurring

920: in galaxies even older than those in our GDDS

921: sample. We think it is likely that the absence of very high

922: mass objects in the GOODS\slash DEIMOS data is simply 

923: due subtle differences in various groups'

924: methodologies for computing stellar masses

925: from photometric data. To further address the question of structural evolution of galaxies presented in Figures~\ref{f8} and~\ref{f9} we plot the redshift 

926: dependence of the projected stellar mass density (defined in section~\ref{sizemass}) in Figure~\ref{f10}. Dashed lines encompass the range of mass 

927: density which contains 90\% of the local (SDSS) data points. The median stellar mass density of the SDSS galaxies is $\rho_e=1.1\times10^8$M$_{\sun}$~kpc$^{-3}$ and this value is 

928: denoted by a red cross plotted at $z=0.1$ in Figure~\ref{f10}. Large fraction (88\%) of the GOODS\slash DEIMOS objects have mass densities above the local median value, and 65\% of these galaxies have mass densities above the upper dashed line in the figure. For the $1.1<z<2$ sample the corresponding numbers are 90\% and 77\%, respectively. On this basis we can conclude that the stellar mass density increases over an extended redshift range, though the dispersion of the plot is large, and more points in both intermediate and high redshift regime are needed to properly constrain this redshift dependence. We intend to revisit the topic in a future paper.

929: 

930: On balance, we conclude that at present neither

931: adiabatic expansion nor equal-mass dry mergers

932: seem able to explain the size growth in early-type galaxies. 

933: A successful model will have to simultaneously explain

934: the size change in the galaxies, the duty cycle

935: for this size change, and the epoch in a galaxy's

936: life history at which the change occurs. 

937: And, as noted above, mass density growth over

938: the redshift interval being probed suggests

939: that the size growth 

940: being witnessed is operating within a broader

941: context for galaxy formation.

942: Over the redshift interval where early-type

943: galaxies are growing in size, the

944: volume-averaged stellar

945: mass density in massive

946: galaxies is increasing, and

947: the morphological mix is changing.

948: 

949: \section{Conclusions}

950: The size-mass

951: relationship for early-type

952: galaxies evolves significantly from $z=2$ to $z=1$.

953: Over the whole of this

954: redshift range early type galaxies tend to be a factor

955: of $2-3$ smaller

956: than local counterparts of similar mass. Similarly

957: compact galaxies are seen at $z>2$  \citep{van08}, and

958: we speculate that

959: the very compact galaxies studied in the present

960: paper are simply the evolved counterparts of these higher-redshift objects,

961: caught at a time before subsequent size growth. By comparing

962: the size distribution of our sample with that of lower

963: redshift surveys, we conclude that significant

964: size growth is probably occurring over the redshift range explored

965: in the present paper.  The physics of this growth remains

966: mysterious. By comparing the size-mass relation at $z\sim1.5$ with its local

967: counterpart we conclude that equal mass dry mergers play only a limited role

968: in growing early-type galaxies, at least once they are

969: older than a few~Gyr.  Other processes

970: may be as important as dry merging in growing early-type galaxies.

971: Adiabatic expansion is one such process that we have

972: examined, and while it may be

973: important in growing young early-type galaxies,

974: it is hard to see how this mechanism can be invoked

975: to obtain a factor of two

976: growth in the sizes of galaxies

977: as old as those in the present survey.

978: 

979: \acknowledgements

980: \noindent{\bf Acknowledgments}

981: \bigskip

982: 

983: \noindent We thank Norm Murray for generously sharing his ideas

984: and papers in advance of publication. We also thank Kevin Bundy

985: for useful discussions.

986: 

987: This paper is based on observations obtained at the Gemini

988: Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for

989: Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the

990: NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science

991: Foundation (United States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy

992: Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council

993: (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council

994: (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina).

995: 

996: Based on observations made with the NASA\slash ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with program \#9760. Support for program \#9760 was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

997: 

998: RGA thanks 

999: NSERC, the Government of Ontario, and the Canada Foundation for

1000: Innovation

1001: for funding provided by an E. W. R. Steacie Memorial Fellowship.  

1002: 

1003: \begin{thebibliography}

1004: 

1005: \bibitem[Abraham et al.(2004)]{abr04} Abraham, R.~G., et al.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 2455 (Paper~I)

1006: \bibitem[Abraham et al.(2007)]{abr07} Abraham, R.~G., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 184 (Paper~VIII)

1007: \bibitem[Baldry \& Glazebrook(2003)]{bal03} Baldry, I.~K., \& Glazebrook, K.\ 2003, \apj, 593, 258

1008: \bibitem[Baldry et al.(2008)]{bal08} Baldry, I.~K., Glazebrook, K., \& Driver, S.~P.\ 2008, \mnras (in press), arXiv:0804.2892

1009: \bibitem[Baumgardt et al.(2007)] {bk07}Baumgardt, H., \& Kroupa, P. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1589 

1010: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2004)]{bell04} Bell, E.~F., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 608, 752

1011: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2006a)]{bell06a} Bell, E.~F., et al.\ 2006a, \apj, 652, 270

1012: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2006b)]{bell06b} Bell, E.~F., et al.\ 2006b, \apj, 640, 241 

1013: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003)]{ber03} Bernardi, M., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1817

1014: \bibitem[Binney  \& Merrifield(1998)]{1998gaas.book.....B} Binney, J., \& Merrifield, M.\ 1998, Galactic astronomy \slash ~James Binney and Michael Merrifield.~ Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 1998.~ (Princeton series in astrophysics) QB857 .B522 1998

1015: \bibitem[Boylan-Kolchin et al.(2005)]{bk05} Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma, C., \& Quataert, E.\ 2005, \mnras, 362,184

1016: \bibitem[Boylan-Kolchin et al.(2006)]{bk06} Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma, C., \& Quataert, E.\ 2006, \mnras, 369,1081

1017: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2007)]{brown07} Brown, M. J. L., Dey, A., Jannuzi, B. T., Brand, K., Benson, A., Brodwin, M. Croton D. J., Eisenhardt, P. R. 2007, \apj, 654, 858

1018: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2003)]{brown03} Brown, M. J. L., Dey, A., Jannuzi, B. T., Lauer, T. R., Tiede, G., Mikles, V. J. 2003, \apj, 597, 225

1019: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 334, 1000

1020: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2007)]{bte07} Bundy, K., Treu, T., \& Ellis, R.~S.\ 2007, \apj, 665, L5

1021: \bibitem[Charlot et al.(1996)]{cha96} Charlot, S., Worthey, G., \& Bressan, A. 1996, \apj, 457, 625

1022: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2003)]{chen03} Chen, H.-W., Marzke, R., McCarthy, P., Martini, P., Carlberg, R. et al. 2003, \apj, 586, 745

1023: \bibitem[Cimatti et al.(2002)]{cim02} Cimatti, A., et al.\ 2002, \aap, 381, L68 

1024: \bibitem[Cimatti et al.(2004)]{cim04} Cimatti, A., et al.\ 2004, \nat, 430, 184 

1025: \bibitem[Cimatti et al.(2008)]{cim08} Cimatti, A., et al.\ 2008, \aap, 482, 21

1026: \bibitem[Daddi et al.(2004)]{dad04} Daddi, E., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 600, 127

1027: \bibitem[Daddi et al.(2005a)]{dad05a} Daddi, E., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 631, L13

1028: \bibitem[Daddi et al.(2005b)]{dad05b} Daddi, E., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 680

1029: \bibitem[De Lucia \& Blaizot(2007)]{dlb07} De Lucia, G., \& Blaizot, J.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 2

1030: \bibitem[Dickinson et al.(2003)]{dic03} Dickinson, M. et al. 2003, \apj, 587, 25

1031: \bibitem[Drory et al.(2001)]{dr01} Drory, N., et al.\ 2001, \mnras, 325, 550

1032: \bibitem[Eggen, Lynden-Bell \& Sandage(1962)]{elbs62} Eggen, O.~J., Lynden-Bell, D., \& Sandage, A.~R.\ 1962, \apj, 136, 748

1033: \bibitem[Faber \& Jackson(1976)]{FJ76} Faber S. M., Jackson R. E., 1976, ApJ, 204,  668 

1034: \bibitem[Faber et al.(2007)]{fab07} Faber, S.~M., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 265

1035: \bibitem[Fontana et al.(2004)]{fon04} Fontana, A., et al.\ 2004, \aap, 424, 23

1036: \bibitem[Fontana et al.(2006)]{fon06} Fontana, A., et al. 2006, \aap, 459, 745

1037: \bibitem[Fruchter \& Hook(2002)]{fh02} Fruchter, A.~S., \& Hook, R.~N.\ 2002, \pasp, 114, 144

1038: \bibitem[Garmany \& Conti(1985)]{gar85} Garmany, C.D. \& Conti, P.S. 1985, \apj, 293, 407

1039: \bibitem[Gallagher, Hunter \& Tutukov(1984)]{ght84} Gallagher, J.~S., Hunter, D.~A., \& Tutukov, A.~V.\ 1984, \apj, 284, 544

1040: \bibitem[Glazebrook et al.(2004)]{gla04} Glazebrook, K., et al.\ 2004, \nat, 430, 181 (Paper~III)

1041: \bibitem[Gonz\'alez-Garc\'ia \& van Albada(2003)]{gva03} Gonz\'alez-Garc\'ia, A.~C., \& van Albada, T.~S.\ 2003, \mnras, 342, 36

1042: \bibitem[Hills(1980)]{hi80}Hills, J.~G.\ 1980, \apj, 225, 986.

1043: \bibitem[Jedrzejewski(1987)]{jed87} Jedrzejewski, R. I., 1987, \mnras, 226, 747

1044: \bibitem[J\o rgensen et al.(1995)]{jor95} J\o rgensen, I., Franx, M., \& Kj\ae rgaard, P.\ 1995, \mnras, 273, 1097

1045: \bibitem[Kang, Jing, \& Silk(2006)]{KJS06} Kang X., Jing Y. P., Silk J., 2006, ApJ, 648,  820 

1046: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003)]{kau03} Kauffmann, G., et al.\ 2003, \mnras, 341, 33

1047: \bibitem[Kormendy(1977)]{K77} Kormendy J., 1977, ApJ, 218,  333 

1048: \bibitem[Kriek et al.(2006)]{kr06} Kriek, M., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 649, L71 

1049: \bibitem[Kriek et al.(2007)]{kr07} Kriek, M. et al.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 776 

1050: \bibitem[Labb{\'e} et al.(2005)]{la05} Labb{\'e}, I., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 624, L81 

1051: \bibitem[Le Borgne et al.(2004)]{lb04}Le Borgne, D., Rocca-Volmerange, B.,Prugniel, P., Lan�on, A., Fioc, M., Soubiran, C.\ 2004, \aap,  425, 881

1052: \bibitem[Lilly et al.(1995)]{lil95} Lilly, S.~J., Le F\'evre, O., Crampton, D., Hammer, F., \& Tresse, L.\ 1995, \apj, 455, 50

1053: \bibitem[Longhetti et al.(2005)]{lon05} Longhetti, M., et al.\ 2005, \mnras, 361, 897

1054: \bibitem[Longhetti et al.(2007)]{lon07} Longhetti, M., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 614

1055: \bibitem[Maraston et al.(2006)]{mar06} Maraston, C., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 85 

1056: \bibitem[McCarthy et al.(2001)]{mcc01} McCarthy, P.~J., Carlberg, R., Chen, H.-W., Marzke, R., Firth, A., et al. 2001, \apj, 560, L11

1057: \bibitem[McCarthy et al.(2004)]{mcc04} McCarthy, P.~J., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 614, L9 (Paper~IV)

1058: \bibitem[McCarthy et al.(2007)]{mcc07} McCarthy, P.~J., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 664, L17 

1059: \bibitem[McGrath et al.(2007a)]{mcg07a} McGrath, E.~J., Stockton, A., \& Canalizo, G.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 241

1060: \bibitem[McGrath et al.(2007b)]{mcg07b} McGrath, E.~ J., et al.\ 2007, \apj (submitted),  arXiv: 0707.1050

1061: \bibitem[Moustakas et al.(2004)]{mou04} Moustakas, L.~A., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 600, L131

1062: \bibitem[Murray, Quataert \& Thompson(2008, in preparation)]{mu08} Murray, N., Quataert, E., \& Thompson, T.~A.\  2008 (in preparation)

1063: \bibitem[Naab et al.(2007)]{na07} Naab, T., Johansson, P.~H., Ostriker, J.~P., \& Efstathiou, G.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 710

1064: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2002)]{pe02} Peng, C.~Y.,  Ho, L.~C., Impey, C.~D., \& Rix, H.-W.,\ 2002, \aj, 124, 266

1065: \bibitem[Pipino and Matteucci(2008)]{pip08}Pipino, A. \& Matteucci, F. 2008, A\&A (in press), arXiv:0805.0793

1066: \bibitem[Rudnick et al.(2003)]{ru03} Rudnick, G, et al.\ 2003, \apj, 599,847

1067: \bibitem[Rudnick et al.(2006)]{ru06} Rudnick, G. et al.\ 2006, \apj, 650, 624

1068: \bibitem[Schade et al.(1999)]{sch99} Schade, D., et al.\ 1999, \apj, 525, 31

1069: \bibitem[Schombert (1986)]{schombert86} Schombert, J. M. 1986, \apjs, 60, 602

1070: \bibitem[Schweizer (1987)]{schweizer87} Schweizer, F. 1987, Science, 231, 227 

1071: \bibitem[Searle \& Zinn(1978)]{searle78} Searle, L., Zinn, R. 1978, \apj, 223, 82 

1072: \bibitem[Stockton et al.(2004)]{sto04} Stockton, A., Canalizo, G., \& Maihara, T.\ 2004, \apj, 605, 37 

1073: \bibitem[Tody (1993)]{tody93} Tody, D., 1993, ASP Conf. Series, 52, 173. 

1074: \bibitem[Toomre \& Toomre(1972)]{tt72} Toomre, A., \& Toomre, J.\ 1972, \apj, 178, 623

1075: \bibitem[Toft et al.(2007)]{to07} Toft, S., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 285

1076: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2005)]{treu05} Treu, T., et al. 2005, \apj, 633, 174

1077: \bibitem[van Dokkum et al.(2008)]{van08} van Dokkum, P.~G., et al.\ 2008, \apj, 677, L5

1078: \bibitem[van Dokkum(2005)]{van05} van Dokkum, P.~G.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 2647

1079: \bibitem[Yan \& Thompson(2003)]{yan03} Yan, L., \& Thompson, D.\ 2003, \apj, 586, 765

1080: \bibitem[Zhao(2002)]{zh02} Zhao, H.~S.\ 2002, \mnras, 336, 159 

1081: \bibitem[Zirm et al.(2003)]{zi03} Zirm, A.~W., Dickinson, M., \& Dey, A.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 90

1082: \end{thebibliography}

1083: 

1084: 

1085: \end{document}

1086:  

1087: