1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,epsf]{aastex}
5: \voffset=-10mm
6:
7: \usepackage{epsfig}
8: \usepackage{longtable}
9:
10: \def \farcs{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$}}
11: \def \farcm{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$}}
12: \def \moverl{\hbox{${\rm M}_\odot/{\rm L}_{{\rm B}\odot}$}}
13: \def \lumstar{{${\rm L}^*_{\rm B}(z=0)=5.6\times10^9~h^{-2} {\rm L}_{\rm {B}\odot}~$}}
14: \def \lowz{{\lowercase z}}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{Spectroscopic Confirmation of Two Massive
19: Red-Sequence-Selected Galaxy Clusters at \lowercase{$z$} $\sim$ 1.2 in the
20: SpARCS-North Cluster Survey}
21:
22: \author{Adam Muzzin\altaffilmark{1}, Gillian Wilson\altaffilmark{2},
23: H.K.C. Yee\altaffilmark{3}, Henk Hoekstra\altaffilmark{4,5,6},
24: David Gilbank\altaffilmark{7}, Jason
25: Surace\altaffilmark{8}, Mark Lacy\altaffilmark{8}, Kris
26: Blindert\altaffilmark{9}, Subhabrata Majumdar\altaffilmark{10},
27: Ricardo Demarco\altaffilmark{2}, Jonathan P. Gardner\altaffilmark{11},
28: Mike Gladders\altaffilmark{12} \& Carol Lonsdale\altaffilmark{13}}
29:
30: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Yale
31: University, New Haven, CT, 06520-8101; adam.muzzin@yale.edu}
32: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
33: University of California, Riverside, CA 92521}
34: \altaffiltext{3}{Department. of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University
35: of Toronto, 50 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3H4}
36: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
37: Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada}
38: \altaffiltext{5}{Alfred P. Sloan Fellow}
39: \altaffiltext{6}{Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, PO Box 9513,
40: 2300RA Leiden, The Netherlands}
41: \altaffiltext{7}{Astrophysics and Gravitation Group, Department of
42: Physics \& Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
43: Canada N2L 3G1}
44: \altaffiltext{8}{Spitzer Science Center, California Institute
45: of Technology, 220-6, Pasadena, CA, 91125}
46: \altaffiltext{9}{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy
47: Koenigstuhl 17, 69117, Heidelberg, Germany}
48: \altaffiltext{10}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
49: 1, Homi Bhabha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005, India}
50: \altaffiltext{11}{Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 665,
51: Laboratory for Observational Cosmology, Greenbelt MD 20771}
52: \altaffiltext{12}{University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue,
53: Chicago, IL 60637}
54: \altaffiltext{13}{North American ALMA Science Center, NRAO Headquarters, 520 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903}
55: %\altaffiltext{13}{Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, California Institute of Technology, Mail Stop 100-22, Pasadena, CA 91125}
56: \begin{abstract}
57: The Spitzer Adaptation of the Red-sequence Cluster Survey (SpARCS) is
58: a deep z$^{\prime}$-band imaging survey covering the $Spitzer$ SWIRE
59: Legacy fields designed to create the first large homogeneously-selected sample of massive clusters at $z >$ 1 using an
60: infrared adaptation of the cluster red-sequence method. We present an
61: overview of the northern component of the survey which has been
62: observed with CFHT/MegaCam and covers
63: 28.3 deg$^2$. The southern component of the survey was observed with
64: CTIO/MOSAICII, covers 13.6 deg$^2$, and is summarized in a companion paper by Wilson et
65: al. (2008). We also present spectroscopic confirmation of two rich
66: cluster candidates at $z \sim 1.2$.
67: Based on Nod-and-Shuffle spectroscopy from GMOS-N on Gemini there are
68: 17 and 28 confirmed cluster members in SpARCS J163435+402151 and
69: SpARCS J163852+403843 which have spectroscopic redshifts of 1.1798
70: and 1.1963, respectively. The clusters have velocity dispersions of
71: 490 $\pm$ 140 km/s and 650 $\pm$ 160 km/s, respectively which imply masses (M$_{200}$) of (1.0 $\pm$ 0.9) x
72: 10$^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ and (2.4 $\pm$ 1.8) x
73: 10$^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$. Confirmation of these candidates
74: as $bona fide$ massive clusters demonstrates that two-filter imaging
75: is an effective, yet observationally efficient, method for selecting clusters at $z >$ 1.
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \keywords{infrared: galaxies}
79:
80: \section{Introduction}
81: In the nearby universe there are numerous lines of evidence suggesting that environmental
82: processes could be the dominant force driving the evolution of
83: the galaxy population. Properties such as star formation rate (SFR, e.g.,
84: Lewis et al. 2002; Gomez et al. 2003; Kauffmann et al. 2004),
85: morphology (e.g., Dressler 1980; Goto et al. 2003; Park et al. 2007),
86: stellar mass (e.g., Kauffmann et al. 2004),
87: color (e.g., Hogg et al. 2003; Balogh et
88: al. 2004; Blanton et al. 2005), and luminosity (e.g., Croton et al. 2005; Park
89: et al. 2007) are all strongly correlated with local galaxy density. Although there is still
90: debate about which, if any, of these relations are
91: ``fundamental'' (e.g., Hogg et al. 2004; Park et al. 2007),
92: it is clear that the mean properties of galaxies we measure depend
93: strongly on the type of environment they occupy.
94: \newline\indent
95: An obvious first step toward a better understanding of environmental
96: processes is to study how they
97: evolve with redshift. At higher redshift, the overall population of
98: galaxies is younger and have been living within their local
99: environment for less time. The environmental processes that are most
100: effective and have the shortest timescales should be most apparent
101: when comparing galaxies at different densities in the high redshift
102: universe. The data at higher redshift are still somewhat sparse
103: compared to the nearby universe but it is beginning to emerge that
104: properties such as the SFR (e.g., Elbaz et al. 2007; Cooper et al. 2008;
105: Poggianti et al. 2008), color (e.g., Cooper et al. 2007) and morphology
106: (e.g., Dressler et al. 1997; Postman et al. 2005; Smith et al. 2005,
107: Capak et al. 2007) are still correlated with local density, albeit differently from the nearby universe.
108: \newline\indent
109: Of particular interest for understanding environmental processes are the
110: cores of rich galaxy clusters. These are the most extreme density environments at
111: all redshifts, and if environment is truly an important force in galaxy
112: evolution a comparison of the properties of galaxies that live in this
113: environment to those that live in the field should provide the largest
114: contrasts. %, particularly at $z \sim$ 1 when the overall galaxy
115: %population is still fairly young.
116: Despite their potential value for such
117: studies, and the abundance of resources directed at finding distant clusters,
118: there are still relatively few confirmed rich clusters at $z >$ 1.
119: \newline\indent
120: The major challenge for cluster surveys targeting the $z >$ 1 range is the need to be
121: simultaneously deep enough to detect either the galaxies or hot X-ray gas in clusters
122: and yet wide enough to be able to cover a large area because
123: of the rarity of rich clusters at $z >$ 1. %For example,
124: %the space density of clusters with M $>$ 5 x 10$^{14}$ at $z >$ 1 is
125: %only about $\sim$ 1 per 10 deg$^2$, although this estimate depends strongly on
126: %the assumed cosmology (e.g., Romer et al. 2001).
127: %\newline\indent
128: The requirement of both depth and area has pushed X-ray detection of
129: clusters with current telescopes to the limit.
130: \newline\indent
131: The largest area targeted X-ray cluster surveys are
132: the XMM-LSS (Valtchanov et al. 2004; Andreon et al. 2005; Pierre et al. 2006) and the XMM-COSMOS (Finoguenov et
133: al. 2007), and while these have been successful at discovering
134: $z >$ 1 clusters (e.g., Bremer et al. 2006), they cover areas of only 9 and 2 deg$^2$,
135: respectively and are therefore limited to fairly low mass systems on
136: average. Indeed, X-ray detection of clusters at $z >$ 1 is so challenging
137: that currently the most promising surveys are those searching for
138: clusters serendipitously in the $entire$ XMM-Newton archive (e.g., Romer et al. 2001; Mullis et
139: al. 2005; Stanford et al. 2006; Lamer et al. 2008).
140: \newline\indent
141: Complementary to X-ray detection is optical detection of clusters using
142: overdensities of galaxies selected using the
143: red-sequence (e.g., Gladders \& Yee 2000, 2005; Gilbank et al. 2004; Muzzin et al. 2008) or
144: photometric redshifts (e.g., Stanford et al. 2005; van Breuklen et
145: al. 2007; Eisenhardt et al. 2008). Recently, it has become clear that the key to discovering clusters
146: above $z >$ 1 with these techniques is the incorporation of
147: infrared (IR) data which probes the peak of the stellar emission for
148: galaxies at $z >$ 1.
149: \newline\indent
150: Although IR surveys have thus far been confined to
151: modest areas (ranging from 0.5 - 8.5 deg$^2$) they have been extremely
152: successful at detecting $z >$ 1 clusters (e.g., Stanford et al. 2005;
153: Brodwin et al. 2006; van Breuklen et al. 2007; Zatloukal et al. 2007;
154: Krick et al. 2008; Eisenhardt et al. 2008; Muzzin et al. 2008).
155: The IR cluster community is now regularly discovering clusters at $z >$ 1
156: and shortly IR-detected clusters should
157: outnumber their X-ray counterparts.
158: \newline\indent
159: Currently the largest area IR survey still deep enough to detect clusters at $z
160: >$ 1 is the $Spitzer$ Wide-Area Infrared
161: Extragalactic Survey (SWIRE, Lonsdale et al. 2003; Surace et al. 2005). SWIRE covers
162: $\sim$ 50 deg$^2$ in the $Spitzer$ bandpasses and is slightly deeper,
163: and nearly a factor of six larger than the next largest IR cluster survey, the
164: IRAC Shallow Survey Cluster Search (ISCS, Eisenhardt et al. 2008).
165: \newline\indent
166: In Muzzin et al. (2008) we demonstrated the potential of using the
167: red-sequence method with $Spitzer$ data to detect distant clusters
168: using data from the 3.8 deg$^2$ $Spitzer$ First Look Survey (FLS, Lacy et
169: al. 2004).
170: %\newline\indent
171: %An important ingredient in the red-sequence method is using a color
172: %that spans the 4000\AA~break feature. For clusters at $z >$ 1, the
173: %optimal choice of filter is the z$^{\prime}$ band SWIRE survey did
174: %not have sufficiently deep optical data. In Muzzin et al. (2008)
175: In 2006 we began observations for the $Spitzer$ Adaptation of the
176: Red-sequence Cluster Survey (SpARCS), a deep
177: z$^{\prime}$-band imaging survey of the SWIRE fields. SpARCS aims
178: to discover the first large, yet homogeneously-selected sample of rich
179: clusters at $z >$1 using the red-sequence method. SpARCS is similar
180: to the RCS surveys (Gladders \& Yee 2005; Yee et al. 2007) which target clusters to $z \sim$
181: 1 using an R - z$^{\prime}$ color except that we use a z$^{\prime}$ -
182: 3.6$\micron$ color, which spans the 4000\AA~break at $z >$ 1.
183: %detect clusters at $z >$ 1 using
184: %We have surveyed the SWIRE fields in the z$^{\prime}$-band with the goal of
185: %detecting clusters at $z >$ 1 using the red-sequence method.
186: %\newline\indent
187: %The primary goal of SpARCS is to discover the first large
188: %homogeneously-selected sample of rich clusters at $z >$1.
189: With a total area effective area of 41.9 deg$^2$ SpARCS is currently the only $z
190: >$ 1 cluster survey that can discover a significant number of rare rich clusters. These clusters will be extremely
191: valuable for quantifying the evolution of galaxy
192: properties in the densest environments at high redshift.
193: \newline\indent
194: This paper is organized as follows. In $\S$ 2 we provide a brief
195: overview of the northern component of the SpARCS survey (the southern
196: component is summarized in Wilson et al. 2008). In $\S$ 3 we discuss
197: the selection of cluster candidates that were chosen for followup
198: spectroscopy, and in $\S$ 4 we present spectroscopic confirmation of
199: two $z >$ 1 clusters from early SpARCS data. In $\S$ 5 we present the
200: dynamical analysis of the clusters followed by a discussion of the
201: cluster properties in $\S$ 6. We conclude with a summary in $\S$ 7.
202: \newline\indent
203: Throughout this paper we assume an $\Omega_{m}$ = 0.3,
204: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 0.7, H$_{0}$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$
205: cosmology. All magnitudes are on the Vega system unless indicated
206: otherwise.
207: %Indeed, massive resources have been committed to the detection of
208: %clusters at $z >$ 1, but the success has been somewhat limited. The
209: %challenge with detecting clusters has always been the trade-off
210: %between depth and area.
211:
212: %0. Cooper and Elbaz imply that ... leads to 1.
213: %1.Detecting clusters to higher redshifts has become a cottage industry
214: %(refs)
215: %2. Particularly important in searching for clusters is detecting rich
216: %ones because see below. --basically galaxies are younger at high-z and
217: %therefore have been sitting in their local environment for shorter
218: %periods of time, therefore strong environmental process can be
219: %disentangled from weak.
220: %3. Surveys require a lot of area to do this.
221: %4. Best way for area is red-sequence, lament Papovich crappy color selection.
222: %5. Introduce SpARCS
223: %Cluster Names:SpARCS J163435+402151, RA16:34:35.40, Dec:40:21:51.59\\
224: %Cluster Names:SpARCS J163852+403843, RA16:38:51.62 Dec:40:38:42.89\\
225: %Cluster Names:SpARCS J003550-431224, RA00:35:49.70 Dec:-43:12:24.16\\
226: %Detecting clusters of galaxies at increasingly higher redshifts has
227: %been the goal of countless optical and X-ray surveys since the
228: %publication of the Abell catalogue in 1958. In the 90s, the Einstein
229: %and ROSAT X-ray observatories led the way with the discovery of the
230: %first massive clusters at $z \sim$ 1 (e.g.,
231: %Gioia et al. 1994; Rosati et al. 1998). Around the same time, optical
232: %surveys that used algorithms that could detect clusters as overdensities in
233: %imaging data based on their luminosity function and spatial
234: %distribution (the so-called matched filter, e.g., Postman et
235: %al. 1996), or color (the red-sequence method, e.g., Gladders \& Yee
236: %2000).
237: %\newline\indent
238: %Despite the rapid progress, and unfettered optimism of cluster
239: %surveys in the 1990s, pushing the discovery of clusters much beyond the $z
240: %\sim$ 1 barrier has proven to be extraordinarily difficult since then. The first
241: %cluster at $z >$ 1.2 was discovered by Stanford et al. (1997), but in the
242: %subsequent 10 years only 6 additional clusters at z > 1.2 were
243: %confirmed (RDCS1252 cluster; Mullis et al. 2005; Stanford et al. 2005; Bremer et
244: %al. 2006; Stanford et al. 2006; van Breuklen et al. 2007), with the
245: %most distant cluster being at $z =$ 1.45. The poor discovery rate of
246: %clusters at z > 1.2 is primarily because only the most massive (and
247: %therefore, extraordinarily rare) clusters at z > 1.2 are within reach
248: %of the current X-ray observatories, and optical searches need to
249: %include an IR-passband to detect clusters at these redshifts. A major
250: %breakthrough was Bootes, but there are limitations with Bootes.
251: %\newline\indent
252: %Intro: Discussion based on *massive* clusters. There are few known at
253: %high-z, and they are valuable because they allow the determination of
254: %a lot of things such as velocity dispersions and stellar populations
255: %because they have enough
256: %galaxies to study. Also galaxy evolution they are perhaps most valuable
257: %because they are the most "extreme" environments at any redshift.
258: %Environmental effects will always be most prevalent comparing the most
259: %massive clusters to the field and therefore determining whether internal or external
260: %processes dominate galaxy evolution it will be key to have the most
261: %massive systems. This is the advantage of SpARCS... being deep and
262: %wide it promises to uncover a homogeneous sample of massive systems at
263: %z > 1, which is not possible using Bootes or XMM-LSS, both are deep
264: %enough, but not wide enough. Likewise XCS and 2XMM are wider, but the
265: %data is not as homogeneous, mostly they lack depth. SpARCS lives in
266: %the parameter space between these surveys which is ideal for
267: %discovering a homogeneous sample of massive systems. End of intro.
268: %Introduce the survey.
269: \section{The SpARCS-North Survey}
270: The SWIRE survey is located in six fields and contains $\sim$ 50 deg$^2$ of imaging in the
271: four IRAC bandpasses (3.6$\micron$, 4.5$\micron$, 5.8$\micron$, and
272: 8.0$\micron$) and the three MIPS bandpasses (24$\micron$,
273: 70$\micron$, and 160$\micron$). Three of the fields are located in
274: the northern hemisphere (ELAIS-N1, ELAIS-N2, and the Lockman Hole),
275: two of the fields are located in the southern hemisphere (ELAIS-S1,
276: and the Chandra-S), and one of the fields is equatorial, the XMM-LSS
277: field. A thorough discussion of the data reduction,
278: photometry, cluster finding, and the SpARCS catalogue for all fields will be
279: presented in a future paper by A. Muzzin et al. (2009, in
280: preparation). Here we present a brief summary of the z$^{\prime}$-band observations of the ELAIS-N1,
281: ELAIS-N2, Lockman Hole, and XMM-LSS\footnote{The XMM-LSS data was
282: obtained as part of the CFHT Legacy Survey} fields obtained with CFHT/MegaCam; hereafter the
283: SpARCS-North Survey. Observations of the ELAIS-S1 and Chandra-S fields
284: were obtained with the CTIO/MOSAICII and are outlined in the
285: companion paper by Wilson et al. (2008).
286: \newline\indent
287: The IRAC imaging of the ELAIS-N1, ELAIS-N2, Lockman, and XMM-LSS
288: fields covers areas of 9.8, 4.5, 11.6, and 9.4 deg$^2$, respectively. In
289: Figure 1 we plot the IRAC 3.6$\micron$ mosaics for
290: these fields. The superposed white squares
291: represent the locations of the CFHT/MegaCam pointings. The pointings
292: were designed to maximize the overlap with the IRAC data, but to minimize
293: the overall number of pointings by omitting regions that have little overlap with the IRAC
294: data.
295: %The MegaCam pointings have a $\sim$
296: %2$'$ overlap with each other so that the pointings in each field can
297: %be photometrically calibrated relative to each other.
298: There are a total of 12, 5, 15, and 13 MegaCam pointings in the ELAIS-N1,
299: ELAIS-N2, Lockman Hole and XMM-LSS fields, respectively.
300: \newline\indent
301: We obtained observations in the z$^{\prime}$-band with 6000s of integration time for each pointing in the ELAIS-N1,
302: ELAIS-N2 and Lockman Hole fields in queue mode using CFHT/MegaCam which is composed of
303: 36 4096 $\times$ 2048 pixel CCDs, and has a field of view (FOV) of
304: $\sim$ 1 deg$^2$.
305: %programs 06AC20,
306: %06BC21, and 07AC24.
307: %For these observations we used a 10-point dither
308: %pattern with $\sim$ 15$'$ offsets in a square pattern. These dithers
309: %were large enough to fill in the 13$''$ gaps
310: %between chips in the rows, but not large enough to fill in the
311: %80$''$ gaps between the rows of chips.
312: %The median seeing was 0.67$''$ in the z$^{\prime}$-band.
313: Omitting the large chip gap areas and regions contaminated by bright stars, the total overlap
314: region with both z$^{\prime}$ and IRAC data is 28.3 deg$^2$.
315: \newline\indent
316: Photometry was performed on both the z$^{\prime}$ and IRAC mosaics
317: using the SExtractor photometry package (Bertin \& Arnouts 1996). Colors were determined using 3 IRAC pixel (3.66$''$)
318: diameter apertures. The IRAC data was corrected for flux lost outside
319: this aperture due to the wings of the PSF using aperture corrections
320: measured by Lacy et al. (2005). Total magnitudes for the IRAC photometry were computed using
321: the method outlined in Lacy et al. (2005) and Muzzin et al. (2008).
322: The 5$\sigma$ depth of the z$^{\prime}$ data varies depending on the seeing and
323: the sky background; however, the mean 5$\sigma$ depth for extended sources is z$^{\prime}$
324: $\sim$ 23.7 Vega (24.2 AB).
325: \begin{figure*}
326: \plotone{f1.eps}
327: \caption{\footnotesize The 3.6$\micron$ mosaics for the four SWIRE fields
328: observable from the northern hemisphere. The location of the SpARCS
329: z$^{\prime}$-band CFHT/MegaCam pointings are overplotted as white
330: boxes. Each MegaCam pointing covers $\sim$ 1 deg$^2$. The observations of the XMM-LSS field were obtained as part of the
331: CFHTLS-wide survey. Excluding areas masked by bright stars and
332: missed by MegaCam chip gaps there are 28.3 deg$^2$ with both
333: z$^{\prime}$ and 3.6$\micron$ observations in the northern fields that can
334: be used for cluster finding.}
335: \end{figure*}
336: \section{Cluster Selection}
337: \indent
338: Clusters are found in the data using the cluster red-sequence
339: algorithm developed by Gladders \& Yee (2000; 2005). Muzzin et
340: al. (2008) used a slightly modified version of the algorithm to
341: detect clusters at 0 $< z <$ 1.3 in the
342: FLS using an R - 3.6$\micron$ color. We use the Muzzin et
343: al. (2008) code for the SpARCS data. The change from a R -
344: 3.6$\micron$ color to a $z^{\prime}$ - 3.6$\micron$ is optimum for
345: targeting clusters at $z >$ 1, where the z$^{\prime}$ - 3.6$\micron$
346: color spans the 4000\AA~break. Other than the change of using a
347: different optical band, the
348: SpARCS algorithm is identical to that presented in Muzzin et
349: al. (2008) and we refer to that paper for further details of the
350: cluster finding technique.
351: \newline\indent
352: After the first semester of $z^{\prime}$ observations were complete
353: there were $\sim$ 14 deg$^2$ of data with both z$^{\prime}$ and 3.6$\micron$
354: data. From this area we selected two rich cluster candidates, both
355: from the ELAIS-N2 field with red-sequence photometric redshifts\footnote{Based on a
356: $z_{f}$ = 2.8 single-burst Bruzual \& Charlot (2003) model} of $z >$
357: 1.2 for spectroscopic followup.
358: These two cluster candidates, SpARCS J163435+402151 (R.A.: 16:34:35.0,
359: Decl:+40:21:51.0), and SpARCS J163852+403843 (R.A.:16:38:52.0, Decl:+40:38:43.0), have
360: richnesses, parameterized by B$_{gc,R}$, of 1053 $\pm$ 278 Mpc$^{1.8}$
361: and 988 $\pm$ 270 Mpc$^{1.8}$, respectively. For a discussion of B$_{gc}$ and B$_{gc,R}$ as cluster
362: richness estimates see Yee \& Lopez-Cruz (1999), and Gladders \& Yee (2005).
363: Based on the empirical calibration of B$_{gc}$ vs. M$_{200}$ determined
364: by Muzzin et al. (2007) in the K-band for the CNOC1 clusters at $z
365: \sim$ 0.3, this implies M$_{200}$ = 5.7 x 10$^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ and
366: 5.1 x 10$^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ for SpARCS J163435+402151 and SpARCS
367: J163852+403843, respectively. Although Muzzin et al. (2007) found
368: there is a fairly large scatter in the B$_{gc}$ vs. M$_{200}$
369: relation, the high richnesses imply that these candidates are
370: likely to be massive, high-redshift systems.
371: %1053 pm 278 for 109 and 988 pm 270 for
372: % 117. That's 5.7e14 for 109 and 5.14e14 for 117
373: \begin{figure}
374: \includegraphics[scale = 0.44]{f2.ps}
375: %\plotone{cluster_109_paper_spec.ps}
376: \caption{\footnotesize Spectra for a subsample of seven galaxies in
377: the cluster SpARCS J163435+402151. The spectra have been smoothed with a
378: 7-pixel boxcar so the sampling matches the instrumental resolution.}
379: \end{figure}
380: \begin{figure}
381: \includegraphics[scale = 0.44]{f3.ps}
382: %\plotone{cluster_117_paper_spec.ps}
383: \caption{\footnotesize Same as Figure 2 but for galaxies in
384: the cluster SpARCS J163852+403843. }
385: \end{figure}
386: \section{Spectroscopic Data}
387: Multislit nod-and-shuffle (N\&S) spectroscopy of galaxies in SpARCS J163435+402151, and SpARCS J163852+403843 were obtained
388: using GMOS-N on Gemini as part of the program GN-2007A-Q-17. We used the R150 grating blazed at 7170A with 1$''$
389: width slits. This provided a resolving power of R = 631 which
390: corresponds to a resolution of $\sim$ 11\AA, or $\sim$ 250 km s$^{-1}$ at the
391: estimated redshift of the clusters. For all observations we used
392: 3$''$ long microslits, corresponding to roughly four seeing-disks,
393: allowing a two seeing-disk spacing between the nod
394: positions. We observed three masks for SpARCS
395: J163435+402151 and four masks for SpARCS J163852+403843. One mask
396: for each of the clusters was observed in ``micro-shuffle'' mode,
397: but the majority were observed in ``band-shuffle'' mode. All masks were
398: observed using the RG615 filter which blocks light blueward of
399: 6150\AA~so that multiple tiers of slits could be used.
400: \newline\indent
401: Unlike micro-shuffle where the shuffled charge is stored directly adjacent to
402: the slit location, band-shuffle shuffles the charge to the top and
403: bottom third of the chips for storage. While technically it is the least-efficient N\&S mode in terms of usable
404: area for observations (only the central 1.7$'$ of the total 5$'$
405: FOV can be used) it is extremely efficient for observations of
406: high-redshift clusters because it allows the microslits to be packed
407: directly beside each other in the cluster core with no requirement for additional space for
408: storing the shuffled charge. In band-shuffle mode we were typically able to
409: locate between 20-26 slits, including three
410: alignment stars, per mask in the central 1.7$'$ around the
411: cluster. At $z \sim$ 1.2 the 1.7$'$
412: FOV corresponds to a diameter of 850 kpc, roughly the projected size of a massive cluster.
413: \newline\indent
414: Slits were placed on galaxies with priorities in the following order:
415: Priority 1, galaxies with colors $\pm$ 0.6 mag from the red-sequence and 3.6$\micron$
416: $<$ 16.9. Priority 2, galaxies with colors $\pm$ 0.6 mag from the red-sequence, 3.6$\micron$ $>$ 16.9 and
417: z$^{\prime}$ $<$ 23.5. Priority 3, galaxies with colors $>$ 0.6 bluer than the red-sequence, but $<$ 1.0 mag
418: bluer and 3.6$\micron$ $>$ 16.9 and z$^{\prime}$ $<$ 23.5. Priority
419: 4, same as priority 3 but for galaxies with colors bluer than the
420: red-sequence by 1.0-1.4 mag. Priority 5: all galaxies with 23.5 $<$
421: z$^{\prime}$ $<$ 24.5.
422: Roughly speaking, Priorities 1 through 4 can be described as bright
423: red-sequence, faint red-sequence, blue cloud, and extreme blue cloud
424: galaxies, respectively.
425: \newline\indent
426: For each mask we obtained a total of 3 hrs of integration time by combining six exposures with 30 mins of
427: integration time. The six frames were obtained using 15 nod cycles of 60s integration time per
428: cycle. Each of the 6 exposures was offset by a few arcseconds using
429: the on-chip dithering option.
430: %Masks contained between 20-26 slits including
431: %three alignment stars.
432: %Id's start with priority-1 number. For ELAISS1-175 it is similar, but
433: %different because the z-band is shallower. Did pm 0.4 on the RS and
434: %used the ch1 as the flux limiter so instead of ch1 > 16.9 z < 23.5 it
435: %was 16.9 < ch1 < 18.0.
436: %SLITS CLA MASK1:26, MASK2:21, CLB:MASK1:25, MASK2:21,MASK3:18,
437: % CLC:MASK1:26 slits
438: %GS-2007B-Q-16
439: %{\bf Resolution:} R150 grating has R = 631 which corresponds to 11.4A
440: %at the blaze angle of 7170A. This is 6.5 pixels on the detector, so
441: %we smooth with a 7-pixel boxcar.
442: %{\bf Slit placement:} Priority 1: pm 0.6 mag from red sequence and ch1
443: %$<$ 16.9. Priority 2: pm 0.6 mag from red-sequence and ch1 > 16.9 and
444: %zband < 23.5. Priority 3: > 0.6 bluer than the RS, but < 1.0 mag
445: %bluer and ch1 < 16.9 and zband > 23.5. Priority 4: Same as priority before but
446: %1.4 < RS < 1.0. Priority 5: no color selection, but 23.5 < z < 24.5
447: %Id's start with priority-1 number. For ELAISS1-175 it is similar, but
448: %different because the z-band is shallower. Did pm 0.4 on the RS and
449: %used the ch1 as the flux limiter so instead of ch1 > 16.9 z < 23.5 it
450: %was 16.9 < ch1 < 18.0.
451: \subsection{Data Reduction}
452: Data were reduced using the GMOS IRAF package. We subtracted a bias
453: and N\&S dark from each frame. The N\&S darks are taken using the
454: same exposure times and using the same charge shuffling routine as the science observations, but
455: with the shutter closed. Regions with poor charge transfer efficiency
456: cause electrons to become trapped during the repeated charge shuffling
457: used in the observations. Such charge traps can be identified and
458: corrected using dark frames taken with the same N\&S settings.
459: %When charge is shuffled on the
460: %chip there are pixels where some of the charge becomes trapped. During the N\&S darks the
461: %charge becomes trapped at the same locations and
462: %therefore subtracting these from the data removes the majority of the
463: %charge-trap features.
464: Images were registered using bright sky lines and sky subtracted using the complementary storage area using the
465: ``gnsskysub'' task. Final mosaics are made by coadding the
466: sky subtracted images.
467: \newline\indent
468: One dimensional spectra were extracted using the iGDDS software
469: (Abraham et al. 2004). Wavelength calibration for each extracted
470: spectrum was performed using bright sky lines from the unsubtracted
471: image, also with the iGDDS software. Wavelength solutions typically
472: have an rms $<$ 0.5\AA. We determined a relative flux calibration
473: curve using a long slit observation of the standard star EG131.
474: %The Gemini-S data used the star EG21
475: \newline\indent
476: Redshifts were determined interactively for each spectrum by comparing with the
477: templates available in iGDDS. Most of the redshifts were identified
478: using the early-, intermediate-, and late-type composite spectra
479: from the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (Abraham et al. 2004).
480: The final redshifts was determined using the average redshift from
481: all absorption and emission lines that were detected. The vast
482: majority of redshifts were determined by identifying the [OII] 3727\AA-doublet
483: emission line
484: (which is not resolved at our resolution), or the Calcium II H+K
485: absorption lines. Many of the spectra also show the Balmer series
486: lines. We list the spectroscopic members of SpARCS
487: J163435+402151 and SpARCS J163852+403843 in Tables 1 and 2, and the
488: spectroscopically confirmed foreground/background galaxies in Tables 3
489: and 4. We also plot examples of some cluster galaxy spectra in
490: Figures 2 and 3. R, z$^{\prime}$, and 3.6$\micron$ color composites of the
491: two clusters are shown in
492: Figures 4 and 5. The white squares denote the spectroscopically
493: confirmed cluster members and the green squares denote the
494: spectroscopically confirmed foreground/background galaxies.
495: \begin{center}
496: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
497: %\LongTables
498: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
499: \scriptsize
500: %\tablecolumns{5}
501: \tablecaption{Spectroscopic Cluster Members in SpARCS J163435+402151}
502: %\tablewidth{1.5in}
503: \tablehead{\colhead{ID} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.} &
504: \colhead{z$^{\prime}$} & \colhead{$z_{spec}$}\\
505: \colhead{} & \colhead{J2000 (Deg.)} & \colhead{J2000 (Deg.)} &
506: \colhead{Mag Vega} & \colhead{}
507: }
508: \startdata
509: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 1}\\
510: \hline
511: 3 & 248.6589 & 40.35303 & 21.54 & 1.179 \\
512: 5 & 248.6497 & 40.36148 & 21.58 & 1.181 \\
513: 6 & 248.6467 & 40.36418 & 20.95 & 1.166 \\
514: 21 & 248.6513 & 40.35238 & 22.14 & 1.174 \\
515: 22 & 248.6605 & 40.35474 & 21.91 & 1.178 \\
516: 25 & 248.6510 & 40.35855 & 21.44 & 1.180 \\
517: 28 & 248.6605 & 40.36132 & 22.19 & 1.182 \\
518: 34 & 248.6527 & 40.36477 & 22.78 & 1.182 \\
519: 37 & 248.6496 & 40.36696 & 21.82 & 1.180 \\
520: 41 & 248.6459 & 40.36841 & 21.97 & 1.185 \\
521: 45 & 248.6440 & 40.37413 & 22.14 & 1.187 \\
522: 3027 & 248.6546 & 40.35461 & 21.59 & 1.181 \\
523: \hline
524: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 2}\\
525: \hline
526: 20 & 248.5991 & 40.34870 & 23.10 & 1.170\\
527: 27 & 248.6548 & 40.35104 & 22.23 & 1.164\\
528: 36 & 248.6171 & 40.36649 & 22.36 & 1.184\\
529: 57 & 248.6700 & 40.39159 & 22.80 & 1.176\\
530: \hline
531: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 3}\\
532: \hline
533: 2 & 248.6584 & 40.34934 & 20.50 & 1.175\\
534: 38 & 248.6474 & 40.36152 & 21.67 & 1.178\\
535: 69 & 248.6669 & 40.39132 & 21.89 & 1.178
536: \enddata
537: %\tablecomments{(3) Photometric redshift estimated from red sequence
538: \end{deluxetable}
539: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
540: %\LongTables
541: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
542: \scriptsize
543: %\tablecolumns{3}
544: \tablecaption{Spectroscopic Cluster Members in SpARCS J163852+403843}
545: %\tablewidth{2.0in}
546: \tablehead{\colhead{ID} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.} &
547: \colhead{z$^{\prime}$} & \colhead{$z_{spec}$}\\
548: \colhead{} & \colhead{J2000 (Deg.)} & \colhead{J2000 (Deg.)} &
549: \colhead{Mag Vega} & \colhead{}
550: }
551: \startdata
552: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 1}\\
553: \hline
554: 5 & 249.7132 & 40.63952 & 21.51 & 1.194\\
555: 7 & 249.7144 & 40.64159 & 21.68 & 1.194\\
556: 8 & 249.7152 & 40.64527 & 21.41 & 1.195\\
557: 1007 & 249.6974 & 40.63383 & 22.50 & 1.199\\
558: 1010 & 249.7151 & 40.63804 & 22.48 & 1.202\\
559: 1016 & 249.7006 & 40.64276 & 22.20 & 1.200\\
560: 1025 & 249.7137 & 40.64952 & 22.46 & 1.200\\
561: 1028 & 249.7104 & 40.65532 & 21.96 & 1.190\\
562: 1031 & 249.7029 & 40.65968 & 22.85 & 1.176\\
563: 3026 & 249.6668 & 40.64420 & 22.73 & 1.195\\
564: \hline
565: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 2}\\
566: \hline
567: 1018 & 249.7032 & 40.64533 & 22.67 & 1.186\\
568: 1020 & 249.7099 & 40.64631 & 22.39 & 1.202\\
569: 1024 & 249.7135 & 40.64828 & 22.24 & 1.198\\
570: 1026 & 249.7126 & 40.65311 & 22.26 & 1.200\\
571: 1030 & 249.7581 & 40.63628 & 21.95 & 1.195\\
572: 2016 & 249.6610 & 40.65976 & 22.22 & 1.197\\
573: \hline
574: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 3}\\
575: \hline
576: 1017 & 249.7136 & 40.64511 & 22.38 & 1.198\\
577: 1019 & 249.7163 & 40.64602 & 22.29 & 1.198\\
578: 2009 & 249.7236 & 40.63171 & 22.10 & 1.188\\
579: 4029 & 249.7619 & 40.65497 & 23.67 & 1.195\\
580: \hline
581: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 4}\\
582: \hline
583: 2 & 249.6947 & 40.61541 & 21.24 & 1.196\\
584: 3 & 249.6986 & 40.62432 & 21.73 & 1.200\\
585: 10 & 249.7314 & 40.66114 & 21.25 & 1.192\\
586: 11 & 249.7378 & 40.66462 & 21.72 & 1.194\\
587: 13 & 249.6680 & 40.67089 & 21.17 & 1.194\\
588: 2014 & 249.7532 & 40.64920 & 22.58 & 1.196\\
589: 2030 & 249.7049 & 40.68847 & 21.87 & 1.175\\
590: 1012 & 249.6992 & 40.63979 & 23.06 & 1.196\\
591: 1021 & 249.7217 & 40.64632 & 21.90 & 1.195\\
592: 3019 & 249.7189 & 40.63320 & 23.17 & 1.219\\
593: 3046 & 249.7509 & 40.68401 & 22.05 & 1.172
594: \enddata
595: %\tablecomments{(3) Photometric redshift estimated from red sequence
596: \end{deluxetable}
597: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
598: %\LongTables
599: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
600: \scriptsize
601: %\tablecolumns{5}
602: \tablecaption{Spectroscopic Foreground/Background Galaxies in Field of
603: SpARCS J163435+402151}
604: %\tablewidth{2.0in}
605: \tablehead{\colhead{ID} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.} &
606: \colhead{z$^{\prime}$} & \colhead{$z_{spec}$}\\
607: \colhead{} & \colhead{J2000 (Deg.)} & \colhead{J2000 (Deg.)} &
608: \colhead{Mag Vega} & \colhead{}
609: }
610: \startdata
611: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 1}\\
612: \hline
613: 4 & 248.6129 & 40.35610 & 20.89 & 1.108 \\
614: 26 & 248.6600 & 40.35898 & 21.38 & 1.004 \\
615: 31 & 248.6042 & 40.36213 & 21.66 & 1.105 \\
616: 45 & 248.6823 & 40.38687 & 23.64 & 0.925 \\
617: \hline
618: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 2}\\
619: \hline
620: 23 & 248.60280 & 40.33815 & 23.79 & 1.337\\
621: 24 & 248.60710 & 40.33762 & 24.05 & 1.255\\
622: \hline
623: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 3}\\
624: \hline
625: 1 & 248.67280 & 40.33252 & 21.16 & 1.348\\
626: 15 & 248.65750 & 40.33183 & 21.32 & 0.780\\
627: 65 & 248.67920 & 40.38581 & 23.45 & 1.108\\
628: 67 & 248.63340 & 40.38773 & 23.05 & 0.811
629: \enddata
630: %\tablecomments{(3) Photometric redshift estimated from red sequence
631: \end{deluxetable}
632: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
633: %\LongTables
634: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
635: \scriptsize
636: %\tablecolumns{5}
637: \tablecaption{Spectroscopic Foreground/Background Galaxies in Field of SpARCS J163852+403843}
638: %\tablewidth{2.0in}
639: \tablehead{\colhead{ID} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.} &
640: \colhead{z$^{\prime}$} & \colhead{$z_{spec}$}\\
641: \colhead{} & \colhead{J2000 (Deg.)} & \colhead{J2000 (Deg.)} &
642: \colhead{Mag Vega} & \colhead{}
643: }
644: \startdata
645: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 1}\\
646: \hline
647: 3021 & 249.7659 & 40.63502 & 22.14 & 0.670\\
648: \hline
649: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 2}\\
650: \hline
651: 3024 & 249.7503 & 40.64119 & 23.61 & 0.875\\
652: 4020 & 249.7305 & 40.63887 & 23.98 & 1.391\\
653: 4030 & 249.7666 & 40.65555 & 23.56 & 0.776\\
654: \hline
655: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 3}\\
656: \hline
657: 3034 & 249.6953 & 40.65273 & 21.96 & 1.393\\
658: 3036 & 249.6603 & 40.65813 & 23.47 & 1.386\\
659: \hline
660: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Mask 4}\\
661: \hline
662: 1 & 249.7320 & 40.60904 & 22.10 & 0.963\\
663: 12 & 249.6992 & 40.66802 & 20.96 & 0.784\\
664: 2003 & 249.6765 & 40.60412 & 22.44 & 1.017\\
665: 2024 & 249.7496 & 40.67251 & 23.50 & 0.848\\
666: 2026 & 249.6744 & 40.67759 & 21.46 & 0.771\\
667: 3004 & 249.7519 & 40.60677 & 21.44 & 0.768\\
668: 3041 & 249.7611 & 40.67033 & 21.17 & 0.784
669: \enddata
670: %\tablecomments{(3) Photometric redshift estimated from red sequence
671: \end{deluxetable}
672: \end{center}
673: %\include{tab2}
674: %\include{tab3}
675: %\include{tab4}
676: %\include{tab5}
677: %\include{gillian_tab2}
678: \begin{figure*}
679: \plotone{f4.ps}
680: \caption{\footnotesize Left: Rz$^{\prime}$3.6$\micron$ color composite of
681: the cluster SpARCS J163435+402151 at $z =$ 1.1798. The R and z$^{\prime}$ images
682: have been convolved to match the 3.6$\micron$ PSF. The FOV of the
683: image is $\sim$ 3.5$'$ across. Right: Same as
684: left panel but with
685: spectroscopically confirmed cluster members marked as white squares
686: and spectroscopically confirmed foreground/background galaxies marked
687: as green squares.}
688: \end{figure*}
689: \begin{figure*}
690: \plotone{f5.ps}
691: \caption{\footnotesize As Figure 4, but for the cluster SpARCS
692: J163852+403843 at $z =$ 1.1963. The FOV of the images is $\sim$
693: 4.5$'$ across.}
694: \end{figure*}
695: \section{Cluster Velocity Dispersions}
696: For both clusters there are a sufficient number of redshifts to determine a velocity
697: dispersion ($\sigma_{v}$) and therefore a dynamical mass. Our $\sigma_{v}$'s are
698: determined using the method detailed in Blindert (2006). Briefly, we
699: make a rejection of near-field non-cluster members using a modified version
700: of the Fadda et al. (1996) shifting-gap procedure. This method uses
701: both the position and velocity of galaxies to reject interlopers. In
702: Figure 6 we plot the relative velocities of the cluster galaxies as a
703: function of projected radius. Two galaxies in SpARCS J163435+402151 are rejected as near-field
704: interlopers and three are rejected in SpARCS J163852+403843.
705: The rejected galaxies are plotted as crosses in Figure 6 and are not used in
706: computing the mean redshift of the cluster or $\sigma_{v}$. Once outliers are rejected the redshift of the clusters
707: is determined using the remaining galaxies. The spectroscopic redshift of the
708: clusters is 1.1798 and 1.1963 for SpARCS J163435+40215 and SpARCS
709: J163852+403843, respectively.
710: \newline\indent
711: The $\sigma_{v}$'s are determined using the ``robust'' estimator
712: suggested by Beers et al. (1990) and Girardi et al. (1993). The
713: robust estimator is simply the biweight estimator for systems with $>$
714: 15 members, and the gapper estimator for systems with $<$ 15 members.
715: As discussed in those papers and Blindert (2006) these estimators are
716: more robust than standard deviations as they are less sensitive to
717: outliers, which may still persist even after the initial shifting-gap rejection.
718: %The $\sigma_{v}$'s for both clusters are determined using the
719: %biweight estimator.% but for the cluster SpARCS J003550-431224 presented in the
720: %companion paper by Wilson et al. (2008), the gapper estimator is used.
721: Using the ``robust'' estimator, SpARCS J163435+402151 and SpARCS J163852+403843 have $\sigma_{v}$ = 490 $\pm$ 140 km s$^{-1}$
722: and 650 $\pm$ 160 km s$^{-1}$, respectively, where the errors have
723: been determined using Jackknife resampling of the data.
724: \newline\indent
725: We estimate the dynamical
726: mass using M$_{200}$, the mass contained within r$_{200}$, the radius at which the
727: mean interior density is 200 times the critical density ($\rho_{c}$). We use the
728: equation,
729: \begin{equation}
730: M_{200} = \frac{4}{3}\pi r_{200}^3 \cdot 200\rho_{c},
731: \end{equation}
732: with the dynamical estimate of r$_{200}$ from Carlberg et al. (1997),
733: \begin{equation}
734: r_{200} = \frac{\sqrt{3}\sigma}{10H(z)},
735: \end{equation}
736: where H($z$) is the Hubble constant at the redshift of the cluster.
737: From these relation we derive r$_{200}$ = 0.62 $\pm$ 0.18 Mpc, and 0.82 $\pm$
738: 0.20 Mpc for SpARCS J163435+402151 and SpARCS J163852+403843,
739: respectively. From Equation 2, these imply M$_{200}$ = (1.0 $\pm$
740: 0.9) x 10$^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ and (2.4 $\pm$
741: 1.8) x 10$^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ for SpARCS J163435+402151 and SpARCS J163852+403843,
742: respectively.
743: %what mass? --how does this compare to the Bgc mass?
744: %mass 1.03 pm 0.89 x 10^14 and 2.40 pm 1.77 x 10^14 and 9.37 pm 6.16 x 10^14
745: %r200 0.62 pm 0.18, 0.82 pm 0.20, 1.22 pm 0.27.
746: \begin{figure*}
747: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
748: \caption{\footnotesize Left Panel: Galaxy velocities relative to the
749: cluster mean velocity as a function of
750: radius for SpARCS J163435+402151. Right Panel: Same as left panel but
751: for SpARCS J163852+403843.
752: Galaxies marked with an ``x'' are more likely to be near-field
753: objects than members of the cluster and are not used in the
754: computation of the velocity dispersion.}
755: \end{figure*}
756: \begin{figure*}
757: \plottwo{f7a.ps}{f7b.ps}
758: \caption{\footnotesize Left Panel: z$^{\prime}$ - 3.6$\micron$
759: vs. 3.6$\micron$ color magnitude diagram for galaxies at R $<$ 550
760: kpc in the field of the cluster SpARCS J163435+402151.
761: Spectroscopically confirmed cluster members and
762: foreground/background galaxies are plotted as red and blue diamonds,
763: respectively. The dotted line is the best fit line
764: to the confirmed cluster members with the slope fixed at zero. Right Panel: Same as left panel but
765: for SpARCS J163852+403843.}
766: \end{figure*}
767: \section{Discussion}
768: \subsection{Red-sequence Photometric Redshifts}
769: \indent
770: In Figure 7 we plot the z$^{\prime}$ - 3.6$\micron$ vs. 3.6$\micron$ color magnitude relation
771: for galaxies at projected radii (R) $<$ 550 kpc in the fields of both clusters. Spectroscopically
772: confirmed members and confirmed foreground/background galaxies are plotted as red and blue diamonds,
773: respectively. The dotted line in both panels is the best fit
774: line with the slope fixed at zero, to the spectroscopically confirmed members. These lines
775: indicate that the red-sequence galaxies have z$^{\prime}$ -
776: 3.6$\micron$ colors of 4.77 and 4.82 for SpARCS J163435+402151 and
777: SpARCS J163852+403843, respectively. Using a solar metallicity, Bruzual \& Charlot
778: (2003) simple stellar population (SSP) with a z$_{f}$ = 4.0 these
779: colors imply photometric redshifts of 1.19 and 1.20, in excellent
780: agreement with the spectroscopic redshifts. At $z \sim$ 1.2, the
781: red-sequence photometric redshifts do not depend strongly on the
782: chosen $z_{f}$. If we instead use a z$_{f}$ = 2.8 SSP, the
783: red-sequence color would predict redshifts of 1.21 and 1.24, and for
784: a $z_{f}$ = 10.0 SSP it would predict redshifts of 1.13 and 1.15.
785: However, the color differences between all these models at fixed redshift are small
786: ($<$ 0.1 mag), and so it is not possible to distinguish between different
787: formation epochs without more data.
788: %At present this should not be taken as evidence that $z_{f}$ = 4.0 is
789: % the correct model because the color differences between the models at fixed
790: % redshift are $<$ 0.1 mag, roughly our estimated accuracy in
791: % the photometric zeropoints. As the
792: % photometric calibration for SpARCS is further optimized the preferred $z_{f}$ could
793: % change.
794: Still, the close agreement between the red-sequence
795: photometric redshift derived using a reasonable $z_{f}$ and the spectroscopic redshift is
796: encouraging for the use of red-sequence photometric
797: redshifts for clusters at $z >$ 1.
798: \subsection{Mass vs. Richness}
799: \indent
800: Both clusters have lower masses than predicted by their richness by factors of $\sim$ 6 and 2
801: for SpARCS J163435+402151 and SpARCS J163852+403843, respectively,
802: although due to the large error bars the differences are only
803: significant at $\sim$ 1 and 2$\sigma$, respectively.
804: Whether this represents a redshift evolution in the B$_{gc}$-M$_{200}$
805: scaling relation, or is simply a richness-selected Eddington bias\footnote{We followed
806: up two of the richest clusters in our early dataset. The cluster mass
807: function is steep at high redshift and low mass systems greatly
808: outnumber high mass systems. Due to scatter in the mass-richness
809: relation lower mass systems with
810: abnormally high richnesses may be more common than truly massive systems. }
811: is impossible to determine using only two clusters. Both Gilbank et
812: al. (2007) and Andreon et al. (2007) found that for a small sample of clusters at $z
813: \sim$ 1 the cluster richnesses were still consistent with their
814: velocity dispersions based on relations calibrated at lower redshift,
815: although both parameters have large uncertainties in their measurements. More clusters with
816: well-determined $\sigma_{v}$ and B$_{gc}$ will be needed to test if the
817: cluster scaling relations at $z >$ 1 are similar to those at lower redshift.
818: \section{Summary}
819: \indent
820: We have presented a brief summary of observations for the northern
821: component of the SpARCS survey. Using Gemini N\&S spectroscopy we
822: confirmed two rich cluster candidates at $z \sim$ 1.2 selected from
823: early survey data. We find that the photometric redshifts from the
824: color of the cluster red-sequence agree extremely well with the
825: spectroscopic redshifts. Both clusters have a smaller M$_{200}$
826: than would be expected from their richness if we use the B$_{gc}$ -
827: M$_{200}$ scaling relation calibrated at $z \sim$ 0.3. Whether this
828: represents a true evolution in the cluster scaling relations at $z >$
829: 1.2 or is simply a selection bias will require well-determined
830: M$_{200}$ for a larger sample of clusters.
831: \newline\indent
832: Overall, the confirmation of both SpARCS J163435+402151 and SpARCS J163852+403843
833: as {\it bona fide} massive clusters at $z >$ 1 provide strong evidence
834: that the red-sequence technique is an effective and
835: efficient method for detecting clusters at $z >$
836: 1 (see also Wilson et al. 2008 who present a confirmed $z =$ 1.34
837: cluster from the southern component of the SpARCS survey). The
838: complete SpARCS catalogue contains $hundreds$ of cluster candidates at
839: $z >$ 1 and promises to be one of the premier data sets for the study
840: of cluster galaxy evolution at $z >$ 1.
841: %{\bf cluster richnesses are 1053 pm 278 for 109 and 988 pm 270 for
842: % 117. That's 5.7e14 for 109 and 5.14e14 for 117.
843: %175 is 1055 pm 276. That's 5.72e14}
844: %\newline
845: %{\bf CMR colors from the models are zf=4}
846: %\newline
847: %z=1.18, z-3.6 = 4.88\\
848: %z=1.20 z-3.6 = 4.96\\
849: %z=1.34 z-3.6 = 5.23\\
850: %\newline
851: %{\bf CMR colors from the models are zf=10}
852: %z=1.18, z-3.6 = 4.93\\
853: %z=1.20 z-3.6 = 5.00\\
854: %z=1.34 z-3.6 = 5.33\\
855: %\newline
856: %{\bf CMR colors from chi-by-eye}
857: %z=1.18, z-3.6 = 4.77\\
858: %z=1.20 z-3.6 = 4.82\\
859: %z=1.34 z-3.6 = 5.40\\
860: %for ELAIS cluster z-3.6 = 5.4 -> z = 1.57 in zf=4.0 and 1.38 in z_f =
861: %10.0 model
862:
863: %\begin{figure*}
864: %\plotone{cluster_175_colour_RGB.ps}
865: %\caption{\footnotesize Left Panel: rz$^{\prime}$3.6$\micron$ Color composite of
866: % the cluster SpARCSJ1634.5+4021. Right Panel: Same as left panel.
867: % Galaxies which are spectroscopically confirmed cluster members are
868: % indicated with light blue square, and galaxies that are confirmed as
869: % either foreground or background galaxies are indicated with dark
870: % blue squares.}
871: %\end{figure*}
872:
873: \acknowledgements
874:
875: Based on observations obtained with MegaPrime/MegaCam, a joint project
876: of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT)
877: which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada,
878: the Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers of the Centre National
879: de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) of France, and the University of
880: Hawaii. This work is based in part on data products produced at
881: TERAPIX and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre as part of the
882: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey, a collaborative project
883: of NRC and CNRS.
884:
885: Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the
886: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement
887: with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United
888: States), the Science and Technology Facilities Council (United Kingdom), the
889: National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council
890: (Australia), Ministerio da Ciencia e Tecnologia (Brazil) and SECYT (Argentina)
891:
892: This work is based in part on observations made with the Spitzer Space
893: Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
894: Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA.
895: \begin{thebibliography}{}
896: \bibitem{ab04} Abraham, R. G., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 2455
897: \bibitem{and05} Andreon, S., Valtchanov, I., Jones, L. R., Altieri,
898: B., Bremer, M., Willis, J., Pierre, M., Quintana, H. 2005, MNRAS,
899: 359, 1250
900: \bibitem{and08} Andreon, S., De Propris, R., Puddu, E., Giordano, L.,
901: Quintana, H. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 102
902: \bibitem{Ba04} Balogh, M. L., Baldry, I. K., Nichol, R., Miller, C.,
903: Bower, R., \& Glazebrook, K. 2004, ApJ, 615, L101
904: \bibitem{Bee90} Beers, T. C., Flynn, K., \& Gebhardt, K. 1990, AJ,
905: 100, 32
906: \bibitem{ber96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S. 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
907: \bibitem{bla05} Blanton, M. R., Eisenstein, D., Hogg, D. W., Schlegel,
908: D. J., Brinkmann, J. 2005, ApJ, 629, 143
909: \bibitem{bli06} Blindert, K. 2006, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto
910: %\bibitem{bla03} Blanton, M. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 819
911: \bibitem{bre06} Bremer, M. N., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1427
912: \bibitem{bro06} Brodwin, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 791
913: \bibitem{Bru03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
914: \bibitem{cap07} Capak, P., Abraham, R. G., Ellis, R. G., Mobasher, B.,
915: Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Koekemoer, A. 2007, ApJSS, 172, 284
916: \bibitem{Car97a} Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., \& Ellingson, E. 1997,
917: ApJ, 478, 462
918: \bibitem{cop07} Cooper, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1445
919: \bibitem{cop08} Cooper, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1058
920: \bibitem{cro05} Croton, D., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1155
921: \bibitem{dre80} Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351
922: \bibitem{dre97} Dressler, A., et al. 1997, Apj, 490, 577
923: \bibitem{ein08} Eisenhardt, P. et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 905
924: \bibitem{elb07} Elbaz D., et al. 2007, A\&A, 468, 33
925: \bibitem{fad96} Fadda, D., Girardi, M., Giuricin, G., Mardirossian,
926: F., Mezzetti, M. 1996, ApJ, 473, 670
927: \bibitem{fig07} Finoguenov, A., et al. 2007, ApJSS, 172, 182
928: \bibitem{gil04} Gilbank, D. G., Bower, R. G., Castander, F. J.,
929: Ziegler, B. L. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 551
930: \bibitem{gil07} Gilbank, D. G., Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E. E.,
931: Gladders, M. D., Barrientos, L. F., \& Blindert, K. 2007, AJ, 134,
932: 282
933: \bibitem{gir93} Girardi, M., Biviano, A., Giuricin, G., Mardirossian,
934: F., Mezzetti, M. 1993, ApJ, 404, 38
935: \bibitem{glad00} Gladders, M. D., \& Yee, H. K. C., 2000, AJ, 120, 2148
936: \bibitem{glad05} Gladders, M. D., \& Yee, H. K. C. 2005, ApJSS 157, 1
937: \bibitem{Gom03} Gomez, P., et al. 2003, ApJ, 584, 210
938: \bibitem{Got03a} Goto, T., Yamauchi, C., Fujita, Y., Okamura, S.,
939: Sekiguchi, M., Smail, I., Bernardi, M., Gomez, P. L. 2003, MNRAS,
940: 346, 601
941: \bibitem{hog03} Hogg, D. W., et al. 2003, ApJ, 585, L5
942: \bibitem{Hog04} Hogg, D. W., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, L29
943: \bibitem{kau04} Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman,
944: T. M., Menard, B., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Tremonti, C.,
945: Brinkmann, J., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713
946: \bibitem{kri08} Krick, J. E., Surace, J. A., Thompson, D., Ashby,
947: M. L. N., Hora, J. L., Gorjian, V., Yan, L. 2008, arXiv:0807.1565
948: \bibitem{lac05} Lacy, M. et al. 2005, ApJSS, 161, 41
949: \bibitem{lam08} Lamer, G., Hoeft, M., Kohnert, J., Schwope, A., Storm,
950: J. 2008, A\&A, 487, L33
951: \bibitem{Lew02} Lewis, I., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 673
952: \bibitem{lon03} Lonsdale, C. J. et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 897
953: \bibitem{Mul05} Mullis, C. R., Rosati, P., Lamer, G., Bohringer, H.,
954: Schwope, A., Schuecker, P., Fassbender, R. 2005, ApJ, 623, L85
955: \bibitem{Muz07b} Muzzin, A., Yee, H. K. C., Hall, P. B.,
956: \& Lin, H. 2007, ApJ, 663, 150
957: \bibitem{Muz08} Muzzin, A., Wilson, G., Lacy, M., Yee, H. K. C., \&
958: Stanford, S. A. 2008, arXiv:0807.0227
959: \bibitem{Muz09} Muzzin, A., et al. 2009, in preparation
960: \bibitem{Par07} Park, C., Choi, Y.-Y., Vogeley, M. S., Gott, J. R., \&
961: Blanton, M. 2007, ApJ, 658, 898
962: \bibitem{pie06} Pierre, M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 591
963: \bibitem{Pog08} Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 888
964: \bibitem{pos05} Postman, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 721
965: \bibitem{rom01} Romer, A. K., Viana, P. T. P., Liddle, A. R., Mann,
966: R. G. 2001, ApJ, 547, 594
967: \bibitem{Smi05} Smith, G. P., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., Moran, S. M.,
968: \& Dressler, A. 2005, ApJ, 620, 78
969: \bibitem{sta05} Stanford, S. A., et al., 2005, ApJ, 634, L129
970: \bibitem{sta06} Stanford, S. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, L13
971: \bibitem{van07} van Breukelen, C., et al. 2007, MNRAS< 382, 971
972: \bibitem{val04} Valtchanov, I., et al. 2004, A\&A, 423, 75
973: \bibitem{wil08} Wilson, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, submitted arXiv:0810.0036
974: \bibitem{yee07} Yee, H. K. C., Gladders, M. D., Gilbank, D. G.,
975: Majumdar, S., Hoekstra, H., \& Ellingson, E., 2007, astro-ph 0701839
976: \bibitem{yee99} Yee, H. K. C., \& Lopez-Cruz, O., 1999, AJ, 117, 1985
977: \bibitem{yee07} Yee, H. K. C., Gladders, M. D., Gilbank, D. G.,
978: Majumdar, S., Hoekstra, H., Ellingson, E. 2007, ASP Conf. Ser. 379, 103
979: \bibitem{zat07} Zatloukal, M., Roser, H.-J., Wolf, C., Hippelein, H.,
980: Falter, S. 2007, A\&A, 474, L5
981: \end{thebibliography}
982:
983: \end{document}
984: