1: \documentstyle[11pt,aaspp,psfig]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,psfig]{article}
3: \def\gs{\mathrel{\raise0.35ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle >$}\kern-0.6em \lower0.40ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
4: \def\ls{\mathrel{\raise0.35ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle <$}\kern-0.6em \lower0.40ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
5: \def\et{\hbox{et al.}$\,$}
6: %\addtolength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
7: %\addtolength{\textheight}{0.5in}
8: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
9:
10: %\received{---}
11: %\revised{---}
12: %\accepted{---}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15: \small
16: {\hfill \fbox{{\sc Revised version} \today}}
17:
18: \title{The evolution of the galactic morphological types in clusters}
19: \author{
20: Giovanni Fasano,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{1}
21: Bianca M.\ Poggianti,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{1}
22: Warrick J.\ Couch,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{2}
23: Daniela Bettoni,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{1}
24: Per\ Kj\ae rgaard,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{3}
25: Mariano\ Moles$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{4}
26: }
27: \smallskip
28:
29: \affil{\scriptsize 1) Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, vicolo dell'Osservatorio 5, 35122 Padova, Italy.}
30: \affil{\scriptsize 2) School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia.}
31: \affil{\scriptsize 3) Astronomical Observatory of Copenhagen University, Juliane Maries Vej 30, 2100 Copenhagen, DK}
32: \affil{\scriptsize 4) Instituto de Matematicas y Fisica Fundamental, CSIC, C/ Serrano 123, 28006 Madrid, Spain.}
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35:
36: The morphological types of galaxies in nine clusters in the redshift
37: range $0.1\ls z\ls 0.25$ are derived from very good seeing
38: images taken at the NOT and the La~Silla--Danish telescopes,
39: with all galaxies at $M_V < -20$ and within the central
40: $\sim$1 $\rm Mpc^2$ area being classified.
41: With the purpose of investigating the evolution of the
42: fraction of different morphological types
43: with redshift, we compare our results with the morphological
44: content of nine distant clusters studied by the MORPHS group
45: (Dressler \et 1997), five clusters observed with
46: {\it HST-WFPC2} at redshift $z = 0.2-0.3$ (Couch \et 1998), and
47: Dressler's (1980) large sample of nearby clusters.
48: After having checked the reliability of our morphological
49: classification both in an absolute sense and relative to the MORPHS
50: scheme (Smail \et 1997), we analyze the relative occurrence of
51: elliptical, S0 and spiral galaxies as a function of the cluster
52: properties and redshift. We find a large intrinsic
53: scatter in the S0/E ratio, mostly related to the cluster morphology.
54: In particular, in our cluster
55: sample, clusters with a high concentration of ellipticals display a
56: low S0/E ratio and, vice-versa, low concentration clusters have a
57: high S0/E. At the same time, the trend of the morphological fractions
58: (\%Es, \%S0s, \%Sp) and of the S0/E and S0/Sp ratios with redshift clearly
59: points to a morphological evolution: as the redshift decreases, the S0
60: population tends to grow at the expense of the spiral population,
61: whereas the frequency of Es remains almost constant.
62: We also analyze the morphology-density (MD) relation in our clusters and
63: find that -- similarly to higher redshift clusters -- a good MD
64: relation exists in the high-concentration clusters, while it is
65: absent in the less concentrated clusters. Finally, the comparison of
66: the MD relation in our clusters with that of the D97
67: sample suggests that the transformation of spirals into S0 galaxies
68: becomes more efficient with decreasing local density.
69:
70: \end{abstract}
71:
72:
73: \keywords{galaxies: clusters -- galaxies: evolution -- galaxies: structure}
74:
75: \sluginfo
76: %\newpage
77:
78:
79: \newpage\section{Introduction}
80:
81: When Butcher \& Oemler (1978, 1984) discovered an excess of galaxies
82: bluer than the elliptical sequence in clusters at $z\ge0.2$, nothing
83: was known about the galactic morphologies at such large distances.
84: The first evidence of the disky/spiral nature of the Butcher-Oemler galaxies
85: came from high-resolution ground-based imagery which also found
86: several cases of galaxies with disturbed morphologies and/or close
87: neighbors (Thompson 1986, 1988, Lavery \& Henry 1988, 1994, Lavery,
88: Pierce \& McClure 1992).
89:
90: Over the past five years, thanks to the high spatial resolution
91: imaging achieved with the {\it Hubble Space Telescope} {(\it HST)}, it
92: has been established that the morphological properties of
93: galaxies in rich clusters at intermediate redshift differ dramatically
94: from those in nearby clusters. The most obvious difference is the
95: overabundance of spirals in the cluster cores at $z=0.3-0.5$ (Couch et
96: al.\ 1994, 1998, Dressler et al.\ 1994, Wirth et al.\ 1994, Dressler
97: et al.\ 1997 [D97, MORPHS collaboration], Oemler et al.\ 1997, Smail
98: et al.\ 1997 [S97, MORPHS]). The spiral population in the distant
99: clusters consist of the great majority of the blue galaxies
100: responsible for the Butcher-Oemler effect, as well as a sizeable
101: fraction of the \sl red \rm population (Dressler et al.\ 1999 [MORPHS],
102: Poggianti et al.\ 1999 [MORPHS]). A considerable
103: proportion of these spirals have disturbed morphologies, in some cases
104: quite clearly as the result of an ongoing merger/interaction
105: while in others possibly connected to some other dynamical mechanism
106: (e.g. interaction with the hot intracluster medium or the cluster tidal field,
107: Moore et al.\ 1996, 1998, Abadi et al. 1999).
108:
109: The second major piece of evidence for morphological evolution in clusters
110: was uncovered only from post-refurbishment data:
111: Coupled to the increase in the spiral fraction, the S0 galaxies
112: at intermediate redshifts are proportionately (x2--3) \sl less \rm
113: abundant
114: than in nearby clusters, while the fraction of ellipticals is already
115: as large or larger (D97, S97). This result strongly suggests that a
116: large number of the cluster spirals observed at $z \sim 0.4$ have
117: evolved into the S0's that dominate the cores of rich clusters today
118: (D97, Couch et al.\ 1998, van Dokkum et al.\ 1998, but see Andreon
119: 1998 for a different view).
120: Thus the disk galaxy populations appear to be greatly affected by
121: the cluster environment, while the ellipticals in dense regions seem to have
122: changed little since $z\sim 0.5$ as far as both their abundance and
123: their stellar populations are concerned (van Dokkum \& Franx 1996,
124: Andreon, Davoust \& Heim 1997, D97, Ellis et al.\ 1997 (MORPHS), Kelson et
125: al. 1997, S97, Barger et al.\ 1998 (MORPHS), van Dokkum et al.\ 1998,
126: Kelson et al.\ 1999).
127: Morphological studies at redshift greater than 0.6
128: have been limited to three
129: clusters so far, pointing to a low fraction of early-type galaxies in two
130: clusters at $z\sim 0.8$ (Lubin et al. 1998, van Dokkum et al. 2000),
131: a high early-type galaxy fraction in a cluster at z=0.9 (Lubin et al. 1998)
132: and a surprisingly high
133: rate of mergers in a cluster at z=0.83 (van Dokkum et al. 1999).
134:
135: Further proof of the changes occurring in clusters
136: is the observed evolution of the morphology-density (MD) relation --
137: the correlation between galaxy morphology and
138: local projected density of galaxies that Dressler (1980a, D80a) found
139: {\it in all types of clusters} at low redshift, whereby the elliptical
140: fraction increases and the spiral fraction decreases with increasing
141: local galaxy density. An MD relation qualitatively similar to that found
142: by D80a was discovered by D97 to be present {\it in regular clusters and
143: absent in irregular ones at $z\sim 0.5$}.
144: Interestingly, the incidence of ellipticals is already very high
145: in all the distant clusters regardless of their dynamical status, therefore
146: the formation of the ellipticals must occur independently of and
147: before cluster virialization (D97).
148:
149: Overall, the available data seem to require a strong
150: morphological evolution in clusters between $z=0.4$ and $z=0$. Still,
151: it is worth keeping in mind that these conclusions, although grounded
152: on high-quality data obtained with a monumental observational effort,
153: are based on a ``small''
154: sample of distant clusters and on the
155: comparison of a limited redshift range around $z\sim 0.4$ with the
156: present-day cluster populations (Dressler 1980b, D80b).
157: Clearly the $z\sim 0.1-0.2$
158: regime - which up until now has remained largely
159: unexplored - is crucial for a better
160: understanding of the progression of galaxy evolution in dense
161: environments. At these moderate redshifts, performing an analysis
162: comparable to that of the MORPHS requires either ground-based CCD imaging taken
163: over quite a large field under excellent seeing conditions, or a
164: time-consuming mosaic coverage with {\it HST}.
165:
166: The goal of this paper is to begin to fill in the observational gap
167: between the distant clusters observed with {\it HST} and the
168: nearby clusters, and hence trace, for the first time, the evolution of
169: the morphological mix at a look-back time of $2-4$ Gyr. In addition, by
170: enlarging the sample of clusters whose galactic morphologies have been
171: studied in detail, we hope to shed some light on the dependence of the
172: observed evolutionary trends on the cluster properties. We present
173: ground-based, good-seeing images of the central regions of 9 clusters
174: at $z=0.09-0.25$ (\S2) and we perform a detailed morphological
175: analysis of the galaxies in these clusters (\S3). We study the
176: relative occurrence of ellipticals, S0's and spirals as a function of
177: the cluster properties and we compare them with similar studies at
178: lower and higher redshift (\S4). Finally, we examine the morphology-density
179: relation of the total sample and of the high- and low-concentration
180: clusters separately (\S5) and we present our conclusions in \S6.
181: Throughout this paper we use $H_0=50
182: \rm \, km \, sec^{-1} \, Mpc^{-1}$ and $q_0=0.5$.
183:
184: \section{Observations and sample selection}
185:
186: \begin{table*}
187: {\scriptsize
188: \begin{center}
189: \centerline{\sc Table 1}
190: \vspace{0.1cm}
191: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
192: \hline\hline
193: \noalign{\smallskip}
194: {Run} & {Date} & {Instrument} & {Pixelsize} & {Field} & {gain} & {r.o.n.} \cr
195: & & & (arcseconds)& (pixels)& & \cr
196: \hline
197: \noalign{\medskip}
198: 1 & 1995~May & STAN-CAM & 0.176 & 1024$^2$& 1.69 & 6.36 \cr
199: 2 & 1995~Jun & STAN-CAM & 0.176 & 1024$^2$& 1.69 & 6.36 \cr
200: 3 & 1997~Jan & DFOSC & 0.420 & 2052$^2$& 1.31 & 4.90 \cr
201: 4 & 1997~Feb & ALFOSC & 0.187 & 2048$^2$& 1.02 & 5.60 \cr
202: \noalign{\smallskip}
203: \noalign{\hrule}
204: \noalign{\smallskip}
205: \end{tabular}
206: \end{center}
207: }
208: \vspace*{-0.8cm}
209: \end{table*}
210:
211: The data presented here we taken as part of a long term project,
212: involving
213: four of us (GF,DB,PK,MM), aimed at analysing the scaling relations
214: of early--type galaxies in 25 clusters spanning the redshift range
215: $0.03-0.25$ (Fasano et al. 2000). Only Abell clusters having Bautz
216: and Morgan (1970) types II or larger, Rood and Sastry (1971) types C or
217: F, and galactic latitude $\vert b\vert > 40^\circ$ were included in the
218: original sample. Moreover, very poor clusters (Abell richness
219: class~=~0) were excluded from the selection.
220:
221: The observations, taken in two or three bands ($B$, $V$, Gunn $r$),
222: were collected at the NOT (STAN--CAM or ALFOSC) and 1.5~Danish (DFOSC)
223: telescopes
224: during four different observing runs from May~1995 to Feb~1997.
225: A log of the observations pertinent to the clusters discussed
226: in this paper, together with the main properties of the CCDs
227: used, are presented in Table 1.
228: The seeing at the NOT telescope ranged from 0.5 to 0.82
229: arcsec, except during run (4) when it was 1.1 arcsec; at the
230: 1.5~Danish telescope (run 3) the seeing was $\sim 1.5$ arcsec.
231: However, the rest-frame resolution in kpc does not vary much within
232: the sample (see Table 2). Several standard star fields (Landolt 1992)
233: were observed during each night in the three bands in order to
234: set the proper photometric calibrations as a function of the zenith
235: distance and of the $B-G_r$ (or $V-G_r$) colors. Bias subtraction and
236: flat--fielding, together with the removal of bad columns and cosmic ray
237: events, were performed using the $CCDPROC$ tool in IRAF. A more detailed
238: description of the observations and data reduction procedures can be
239: found in Fasano et al.~(2000).
240:
241: To be consistent with previous
242: morphological studies (D97), we should only consider clusters for
243: which at least the central 1~$\rm Mpc^2$ has been imaged.
244: Due to the limited angular size of our CCD frames, we have excluded
245: from the present sample those clusters with $z < 0.09$, for which the coverage
246: turned out to be inadequate. Moreover,
247: since our observations were not conceived in order to satisfy the above
248: mentioned criterion, even for clusters with $z > 0.1$ the sampled area is sometimes
249: less than 1~$\rm Mpc^2$ and it often turns out to be shifted with respect
250: to the geometrical center of the cluster.
251: Hence, among the 25 clusters observed as part of the scaling-relation
252: program, we have selected 9 clusters in the redshift range $0.1\ls
253: z\ls 0.25$ for which an acceptable coverage of the central region has
254: been secured.
255:
256: The basic information concerning the selected clusters and the
257: parameters relevant for our analysis are reported in Table 2.
258: For two clusters, A2658 and A1878, the available frames cover about
259: half of the requested area: in the following we will explain how we
260: have tried to account for the partial coverage. For
261: Abell~2192 we list two different entries in Table 2: the first one
262: (run 1) refers to four contiguous Gunn~$r$ images covering a quite large
263: area, the second one (run 2) relates to a smaller part of the
264: cluster, for which ($B$-$r$) colors of galaxies are available, thus
265: allowing a more accurate photometric calibration. When comparing
266: with the other clusters, we will refer to the large area image of
267: A2192, while we will make use of the smaller area to assess how strongly the
268: different coverage can affect the results.
269:
270: \begin{table*}
271: {\scriptsize
272: \begin{center}
273: \centerline{\sc Table 2}
274: \vspace{0.1cm}
275: %\centerline{\sc }
276: %\vspace{0.3cm}
277: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
278: \hline\hline
279: \noalign{\smallskip}
280: {Cluster} & z & RA & DEC & E(B-V) & Run & area & seeing & seeing & $M_{lim}$ \cr
281: & & (J2000) & (J2000) & & & $\rm Mpc^2$ & arcsec & kpc & (Gunn r) \cr
282: \hline
283: \noalign{\medskip}
284: A3330 & 0.091 &05$^h$~14$^m$~47$^s$&-49$^{\circ}$~04$^{\prime}$~19$^{\prime\prime}$&0.00& 3 & 1.0 & 1.53 & 3.46 & 18.36 \cr
285: A389 & 0.116 &02$^h$~51$^m$~31$^s$&-24$^{\circ}$~56$^{\prime}$~05$^{\prime\prime}$&0.00& 3 & 1.2 & 1.45 & 4.04 & 18.85 \cr
286: A951 & 0.143 &10$^h$~13$^m$~55$^s$ &+34$^{\circ}$~43$^{\prime}$~06$^{\prime\prime}$&0.01& 4 & 1.0 & 1.10 & 3.65 & 19.34 \cr
287: A2658 & 0.185 &23$^h$~44$^m$~59$^s$ &-12$^{\circ}$~18$^{\prime}$~20$^{\prime\prime}$&0.10& 2 & 0.4 & 0.70 & 2.78 & 20.46 \cr
288: A2192(l)& 0.187 &16$^h$~26$^m$~37$^s$ &+42$^{\circ}$~40$^{\prime}$~20$^{\prime\prime}$&0.01& 1 & 1.8 & 0.55 & 2.22 & 20.21 \cr
289: A2192(s)& 0.187 &16$^h$~26$^m$~37$^s$ &+42$^{\circ}$~40$^{\prime}$~20$^{\prime\prime}$&0.01& 2 & 0.4 & 0.82 & 3.31 & 20.21 \cr
290: A1643 & 0.198 &12$^h$~55$^m$~54$^s$ &+44$^{\circ}$~04$^{\prime}$~46$^{\prime\prime}$&0.00& 1 & 0.9 & 0.50 & 2.10 & 20.33 \cr
291: A2111 & 0.229 &15$^h$~39$^m$~38$^s$ &+34$^{\circ}$~24$^{\prime}$~21$^{\prime\prime}$&0.06& 1 & 0.9 & 0.70 & 3.22 & 20.80 \cr
292: A1952 & 0.248 &14$^h$41$^m$~04$^s$ &+28$^{\circ}$~38$^{\prime}$~12$^{\prime\prime}$&0.00& 2 & 1.2 & 0.60 & 2.93 & 20.92 \cr
293: A1878 & 0.254 &14$^h$~12$^m$~49$^s$ &+29$^{\circ}$~12$^{\prime}$~59$^{\prime\prime}$&0.00& 1 & 0.6 & 0.50 & 2.47 & 20.92 \cr
294: \noalign{\smallskip}
295: \noalign{\hrule}
296: \noalign{\smallskip}
297: \end{tabular}
298: \end{center}
299: }
300: \vspace*{-0.8cm}
301: \end{table*}
302:
303:
304: \section{Galaxy catalogs and morphological classification}
305:
306: Catalogs of galaxies for each frame have been obtained using
307: SExtractor (Bertin and Arnouts 1996). The galaxy magnitudes have
308: been corrected for a well known bias affecting SExtractor magnitudes
309: of galaxies having an $r^{1/4}$ profile (Franceschini et al. 1998).
310:
311: As in D97, the analysis of the morphological types has been
312: done for galaxies down to a visual absolute magnitude $M_V \sim -20.0$.
313: The corresponding $r$-band magnitude limits were derived using standard
314: Gunn-$r$ and Cousins/Johnson ($V$) filter transmission, first
315: adopting the conversion between Gunn-$r$ and Cousins $R$ given by
316: Jorgensen (1994) and then applying
317: the K-corrections of an intermediate energy distribution (Sab)
318: for $H_0=50 \rm \, km \, sec^{-1} \, Mpc^{-1}$ and $q_0=0.5$.
319: Examples of K-corrections for various galactic types can be found
320: in Poggianti (1997).
321: The magnitude limits were corrected for the foreground Galactic extinction
322: (see Table 2) according to the standard Galactic extinction law (Mathis 1990).
323:
324: Column 8 of Table 2 reports the seeing in arcseconds, whereas column 9
325: shows the rest-frame resolution that ranges between 2 and 4 kpc. Even
326: though the seeing quality of our imagery was often excellent, the
327: spatial resolution is poorer than that secured by the {\it HST}
328: imaging of the clusters in D97 ($\sim 0.7$~kpc at $z\sim$ 0.5), making
329: the merely visual classification less reliable with respect to that
330: given by the MORPHS. In order to improve the morphological type
331: estimates we have produced luminosity and geometrical (ellipticity and
332: position angle) profiles of all selected galaxies using the automatic
333: surface photometry tool $GASPHOT$ (Pignatelli and Fasano 1999). In this
334: way, in addition to the appearance of the galaxies on the images and
335: to the surface and isophotal plots, we took advantage of the typical
336: indications coming from the morphological profiles. For instance, S0
337: galaxies, even if poorly resolved, are usually characterized by
338: increasing ellipticity profiles (indicating an extended disk superimposed
339: upon an inner, round bulge), composite luminosity profiles (with
340: $r^{1/4}$ inner part and exponential outer part) and almost constant
341: position angle profiles in the outer part (disk). In contrast,
342: constant (or even decreasing) ellipticity profiles and outer isophotal
343: twisting (together with `pure' $r^{1/4}$ luminosity profile) are
344: highly suggestive of an elliptical morphology. An exponential
345: luminosity profile, with almost constant (or fluctuating) position
346: angle and ellipticity profiles are good hints of spiral
347: morphology. A break-down in ellipticity, coupled with a sharp (and
348: large) change of position angle, usually indicates the presence of a
349: bar, thus suggesting a spiral (or S0) classification. Clearly, the
350: above indications cannot be considered as unfailing rules, but
351: certainly they contributed to make the classifications more robust.
352: Table~3 (available on CD-ROM form) reports the positions and the
353: morphological classifications of all galaxies in our sample.
354:
355: The morphological classification of the selected galaxies was
356: done by GF on the $r$-band images relying on both the visual appearance
357: and the profiles.
358: Galaxies whose broad classification (E/S0/Sp) was judged uncertain
359: have been recorded with a question mark (eg: E?, S0?, Sp?) in Table~3.
360: The transition objects
361: (E/S0, S0/E, S0/a, Sa/0) have been `arbitrarily' assigned to some
362: broad class (E/S0/Sp) on the basis of the experience and of the
363: opinion of the classifier (GF). However, the relative number of
364: galaxies with uncertain and/or transition morphology turns out to add
365: a negligible contribution to the errorbars of the morphological
366: frequencies which are dominated by the Poissonian
367: uncertainties.
368:
369: It is obviously crucial for our purposes to assess the reliability of
370: our classification scheme both in an absolute sense and relative to
371: the MORPHS scheme. To this end we have devised four different
372: `blind' tests. The absolute accuracy of our classification has
373: been checked in two ways:
374:
375: a) Using the $MKOBJECTS$ tool in IRAF, we have produced a set of `toy'
376: galaxies with different bulge/disk luminosity and size ratios and
377: varying inclination,
378: trying to reproduce E, S0, Sa and Sbc galaxies according to the typical
379: ratios given by Simien and de~Vaucouleurs (1986).
380: The proper values of noise, seeing, pixel size and redshift have been
381: used in the simulations to mimic, at best, the observing conditions of
382: the cluster A2111 at z=0.23 which represents an average case for
383: its seeing and rest-frame resolution (0.7 arcsec, 3.22 kpc). The toy
384: galaxies have been then classified using the same tools and the same
385: classification scheme used for real galaxies.
386:
387: b) The nearby galaxy imaging collection of Frei et al. (1996) has been
388: used to produce redshifted versions (with the $\sim (1+z)^4$
389: surface brightness dimming taken into account) of 34 galaxies of
390: different morphological
391: types, including all the galaxies listed by Frei et al. to have
392: types E to Sa (T=-5 to 1) and eight later-type galaxies (T=2 to 6).
393: In this way we intended to verify the capacity to discriminate
394: between ellipticals, S0s and early-type spirals and to recognize
395: later-type galaxies, the latter being an easier task than the former.
396: Again the proper values of the observing parameters have been
397: used to mimic our A2111 images and the resulting galaxies have been
398: classified following the procedure and the rules used for our cluster
399: galaxies.
400:
401: \newpage
402:
403: \hbox{~}
404: %\vspace{-3.3cm}
405: %\centerline{\psfig{file=f1.eps,angle=270,width=10.0in}}
406: \centerline{\psfig{file=f1.eps,width=8cm}}
407: \vspace{-2.cm}
408: \noindent{\scriptsize
409: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
410: \vspace*{3cm}\hspace*{0.3cm}
411:
412: {\bf Fig.~1.(to be viewed in landscape)} --
413: \ Examples of Frei's nearby galaxy images (lower row of each set)
414: compared with the corresponding redshifted versions (upper row of
415: each set). Three
416: galaxies for each broad morphological type
417: (E:S0:Sp) are presented. From bottom to top: the elliptical galaxies
418: NGC~4365, NGC~4472 and NGC~4636; the S0 galaxies NGC~3166, NGC~4710 and
419: NGC~4754; the spiral galaxies NGC~3623, NGC~3877 and NGC~6118.
420: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
421: }
422:
423: \newpage
424:
425: In Figure~1 three examples of Frei's nearby galaxy
426: images for each broad class (E:S0:Sp) are shown, together with the
427: corresponding redshifted versions.
428:
429: The main goal of these tests is to determine whether the quality
430: of our images is sufficient to recognize, at the cluster redshifts, the
431: salient features of the galactic morphologies, enabling us to broadly
432: classify galaxies into ellipticals (E,E?,E/S0), S0s (S0,S0?,S0/E,S0/a)
433: and spirals (Sa/0 and later) {\it as we would do for nearby galaxies}.
434: These tests show that in the great majority of cases (89\% in test [a]
435: and 73\% in test [b]) the broad
436: morphological types (E, S0 and spirals) assigned by GF at z=0 are also
437: recovered at $z\sim 0.23$ with no systematic shift among the types.
438: The only exception is represented by those galaxies from Frei's
439: catalog that were classified as S0/a at z=0. In fact, half of them
440: enter the ``spiral class'' as early spirals when viewed at z=0.23,
441: while in our classification the S0/a galaxies belongs to the S0 class.
442: Excluding these S0/a galaxies, low-z ellipticals, S0s and spirals
443: were recovered at z=0.23 in the 92\% (11/12), 71\% (5/7) and 100\% (8/8)
444: of the cases, respectively.
445: Test a) shows that, regardless of the redshift, the seeing conditions,
446: etc, S0 galaxies viewed face-on are classified ellipticals, while
447: the inclination of S0 and Sa galaxies influences the assignment to one
448: class or the other as edge-on S0s are easily mistaken for Sa's, while
449: Sa's at small inclinations are classified S0's.
450:
451: \hbox{~}
452: \centerline{\psfig{file=f2.eps,angle=0,width=5.0in}}
453: \vspace{-0.8cm}
454: \noindent{\scriptsize
455: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
456: \vspace*{-2.5cm}\hspace*{0.3cm}
457:
458: {\bf Fig.~2.} --
459: \ {\sl Upper-left panel}: comparison between the de~Vaucouleurs T types
460: assigned by GF and WJC in their classifications of
461: 67 galaxies from the groundbased (NOT) imaging
462: of the clusters Abell~1643 and Abell~1878. The number of galaxies in
463: each bin of the GF versus WJC plane is indicated. {\sl Upper-right
464: panel}:
465: comparison between the de~Vaucouleurs T types assigned by GF and the
466: MORPHS in their $HST$--based classifications of the clusters CL~0024+16
467: and CL~0939+47.
468: {\sl Lower panels}: average differences between the external and the GF
469: types versus the GF classifications. Error bars illustrate the
470: statistical variances.
471: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
472: }
473:
474: In the tests described above, our types are compared with morphological
475: classifications which are considered correct {\it a priori}, since they
476: refer
477: to toy or nearby galaxies. However, in order to be able to compare our results
478: with higher redshift clusters, besides an absolute
479: check, we need to test the consistency between our classifications and
480: those of the MORPHS group. This has been done in two ways:
481:
482: c) GF undertook independent visual classifications of galaxies in
483: the MORPHS {\it HST} images of the clusters CL~0024+16 and CL~0939+47.
484:
485: d) WJC (one of the classifiers of the MORPHS collaboration) has
486: provided independent visual classifications of 67 galaxies in two
487: clusters of the present sample (Abell~1643 and Abell~1878).
488:
489: The results of tests c) and d) are summarized in Figure~2. At first
490: sight the agreement between GF and the external classifiers
491: seems to be quite good. However, after counting the total number of
492: galaxies which, according to the different classifiers, fall in the
493: different broad morphological types (E/S0/Sp), it was found that GF
494: had classified a smaller number of galaxies as S0 in comparison to
495: WJC and the MORPHS (57 versus 73).
496: Twelve of these galaxies GF had classified as ellipticals, while
497: the remaining 4 had been classified as spirals.
498:
499: We stress that these differences are actually not statistically
500: significant as far as the counts are concerned. In the worst case --
501: the S0 galaxies -- the Poissonian uncertainties are such that the
502: difference in numbers between GF and the other classifiers (57 cf. 73)
503: represents only a 1.5$\sigma$ marging. Nevertheless, to be conservative,
504: we have assumed the above difference in assignment between the
505: classifiers to be
506: systematic. In section 5, where an overall discussion of all
507: available data will be presented, in order to consistently compare our
508: data with those from the MORPHS sample, we will introduce a
509: statistical correction to account for these differences in the
510: morphological classification.
511:
512: An indirect, fully independent confirmation of the correctness of
513: our morphological classifications may be obtained by looking at the
514: ellipticity distribution of elliptical and S0 galaxies in our
515: clusters. These distributions are shown in Figure~3, together
516: with the the ellipticity distribution of E galaxies derived by Fasano
517: and Vio (1991) for a large sample of local objects (smooth solid
518: line). The agreement with the corresponding distribution from our
519: elliptical galaxy sample is fairly good, supporting the assumption that we
520: are sampling the same population. Moreover, our E and S0 ellipticity
521: distributions are very similar to the corresponding ones shown in S97
522: and D97 for the MORPHS dataset, the Coma cluster (Andreon et al. 1996)
523: and the nearby cluster sample of D80b. It is worth noting that the
524: lack of round objects in the ellipticity distribution of S0 galaxies
525: confirms the previously mentioned bias in the classification of
526: face-on S0s (see test [a]). This kind of misclassification,
527: however, has been shown to be almost unavoidable, even for nearby
528: galaxies (Capaccioli et al. 1991).
529:
530: \hbox{~}
531: \centerline{\psfig{file=f3.eps,angle=0,width=3.7in}}
532: \vspace{-0.45in}
533: \noindent{\scriptsize
534: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
535: \hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~3.} \ Ellipticity distributions of elliptical
536: and S0 galaxies in our clusters. The smooth solid line represents the
537: ellipticity distribution of Es derived by Fasano and Vio (1991) for a
538: large sample of local objects.
539: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
540: }
541:
542: \section{Results and comparison with other samples}
543:
544: \begin{table*}
545: {\scriptsize
546: \begin{center}
547: \centerline{\sc Table 4: morphological counts of our clusters}
548: \vspace{0.1cm}
549: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
550: \hline\hline
551: \noalign{\smallskip}
552: {Cluster} & z & E & S0 & Sp & S0/E \cr
553: \hline
554: \noalign{\medskip}
555: 1) A3330 & 0.091 & 18 & 18 & 11 & 1.00$\pm$0.33 \cr
556: 2) A 389 & 0.116 & 17 & 18 & 3 & 1.06$\pm$0.36 \cr
557: 3) A951 & 0.143 & 10 & 12 & 2 & 1.20$\pm$0.50 \cr
558: 4) A2658 & 0.185 & 11 & 6 & 3 & 0.54$\pm$0.29 \cr
559: 5) A2192(l) & 0.187 & 17 & 18 & 14 & 1.06$\pm$0.36 \cr
560: 5) A2192(s) & 0.187 & 9 & 12 & 5 & 1.33$\pm$0.59 \cr
561: 6) A1643 & 0.198 & 15 & 17 & 15 & 1.13$\pm$0.40 \cr
562: 7) A2111 & 0.229 & 34 & 17 & 16 & 0.50$\pm$0.14 \cr
563: 8) A1952 & 0.248 & 25 & 14 & 14 & 0.56$\pm$0.20 \cr
564: 9) A1878 & 0.254 & 15 & 8 & 15 & 0.53$\pm$0.23 \cr
565: \noalign{\smallskip}
566: \noalign{\hrule}
567: \noalign{\smallskip}
568: \end{tabular}
569: \end{center}
570: }
571: \vspace*{-0.8cm}
572: \end{table*}
573:
574: In Table~4 we list, for each cluster, the observed numbers of Es, S0s and
575: spirals and the observed S0/E ratio, together with the Poissonian
576: error. The clusters appear to be grouped in two different families,
577: according to their S0/E ratios: a low S0/E family (4 clusters) with
578: S0/E$\sim$0.5, and a high S0/E family (5 clusters) with S0/E$\gs$1.1.
579: We note that if we apply to our counts a statistical correction to
580: compensate for the excess of Es and the lack of S0s we have found in our
581: classifications with respect to the MORPHS (see \S 3), the S0/E
582: ratios of the above mentioned families both shift upwards, but the
583: dichotomy remains (see Figure~10a).
584: We have investigated whether this S0/E dichotomy could be driven by the small
585: cluster-to-cluster variations in the rest-frame characteristics of the
586: images, but the observed S0/E ratio is found to be uncorrelated with
587: the resolution and with the area surveyed as shown in Fig.~4a,b.
588: \footnote{The sensitivity of the S0/E ratio to the rest-frame area
589: surveyed, was tested using A2192, which has large coverage. This
590: showed only a modest effect (see also Table 2).}
591: Hence, the S0/E dichotomy seems to reflect an intrinsic difference in
592: the relative proportions of these types of galaxies in the two subsets
593: of clusters.
594:
595: \hbox{~}
596: \vspace{-2.5in}
597: \centerline{\psfig{file=f4.eps,angle=0,width=5in}}
598: \noindent{\scriptsize
599: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
600: \hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~4.} \
601: The S0/E ratio versus the rest-frame resolution (in kpc), the area (in
602: $\rm Mpc^2$) and the mean galaxy density (in numbers of galaxies per $\rm
603: Mpc^2$). The {\it open} circles refer to A2192, where both the smallest
604: area (0.4 $\rm Mpc^2$) and the largest area (1.8 $\rm Mpc^2$) values
605: are plotted.
606: Errorbars are not displayed for the sake of clarity and can
607: be found in Table~4.
608: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
609: }
610:
611: The low S0/E and the high S0/E clusters are at $z \geq 0.19$ and $z
612: \leq 0.2$, respectively,
613: but this step-like behaviour of the S0/E ratio at $z\sim 0.2$ is unlikely
614: to be an abrupt evolutionary effect: rather, it could be related to
615: different characteristics of the two families of clusters. Searching
616: for correlations between the S0/E ratio and the global cluster
617: properties, we have found no relation with the mean projected galaxy
618: density (Fig.~4c). {\it The only structural difference between the low-S0/E
619: and the high-S0/E clusters seems to be the presence/absence of a
620: high concentration of elliptical galaxies in a region that is
621: identified as the cluster centre.} This effect, visible even for
622: individual clusters, is evident in Figure~5, where the centered
623: \footnote{In the following the cluster centers are defined, for each
624: cluster, by the median coordinates of all galaxies. However, the results
625: turn out to be very similar if a different definition of the center is
626: adopted (i.e mean rather than median coordinates and/or elliptical rather
627: than whole population).}
628: maps of the low-S0/E and high-S0/E clusters are superimposed
629: separately on a rest--frame absolute scale.
630:
631: \hbox{~}
632: \vspace{-1in}
633: \centerline{\psfig{file=f5.eps,angle=0,width=5.2in}}
634: \vspace{-1in}
635: \noindent{\scriptsize
636: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
637: \hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~5.} \
638: Overlapping of the centered maps of the
639: low-S0/E and high-S0/E clusters. Filled dots, open dots and crosses
640: refer to ellipticals, S0s and spirals, respectively.
641: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
642: }
643:
644: A more quantitative illustration of the difference in the galaxy
645: spatial distribution between the low-S0/E and the high-S0/E clusters
646: is given in Fig.~6 using the Kolmogorov--Smirnov (KS) test. The cumulative
647: radial distribution of the ellipticals in the low-S0/E clusters is
648: significantly steeper (i.e. more concentrated) than that of the high
649: S0/E clusters. The two S0 distributions are practically
650: indistinguishable and those of the spirals do not differ
651: significantly, while the two total distributions of all types of galaxies
652: are dominated by the ellipticals and are statistically different.
653:
654: \hbox{~}
655: \centerline{\psfig{file=f6.eps,angle=0,width=5in}}
656: %\vspace{-0.5in}
657: \noindent{\scriptsize
658: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
659: \hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~6.} \
660: Kolmogorov--Smirnov test applied to the overlapped radial
661: distributions (see Figure~5) of galaxies of different types for
662: low-S0/E (full lines) and high-S0/E (dotted lines) clusters.
663: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
664: }
665:
666: It is worth stressing that, both the `first sight' impression from
667: Figure~5 and the `objective' test in Figure~6 might actually be biased
668: by the differences in the rest--frame sampled areas among the
669: clusters, as well as by the slight off--centering of the CCD frames
670: with respect to the cluster centers and by the irregular shape of the
671: area surveyed. In an attempt to overcome this problem, we present in
672: Figure~7
673: a different representation of the cumulative radial distributions. In
674: this figure each line represents a different cluster (the numbers at
675: the end of each line identify the clusters according to the ranking in
676: Table~4) and the distributions are not normalized to the total number
677: of galaxies. Moreover, in order to correct for incompleteness due to
678: the irregular shape of the area surveyed, the cumulative numbers
679: $N_{CC}$ in Figure~7 are obtained by adding, for each new galaxy at
680: increasing distance $r$, the quantity $1/C(r)$, where $C(r)$ is a
681: completeness factor expressing the fraction of the circular area $\pi
682: r^2$ which is actually included in the area surveyed. These
683: corrections turn out to be small and never exceed $10\%$. Even
684: though not quantifiable by statistical tests like a KS, in Figure~7
685: the difference in the concentration of the elliptical population
686: between low-S0/E (full lines) and high-S0/E (dashed lines) clusters
687: stands out, with the low-S0/E clusters having a steeper elliptical
688: distribution.
689:
690: \hbox{~}
691: \centerline{\psfig{file=f7.eps,width=7.0in}}
692: %\vspace{-0.5in}
693: \noindent{\scriptsize
694: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
695: \hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~7.} \
696: Cumulative but un-normalized radial distributions of individual
697: low-S0/E and high-S0/E clusters (full and dotted lines, respectively),
698: corrected for area incompleteness as explained in the text.
699: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
700: }
701:
702: In the following, the clusters with a high and low concentration of
703: ellipticals will be indicated by the acronyms $HEC$ and $LEC$.
704: It is worth noting that, since in our sample there is
705: a perfect correspondence between the concentration of ellipticals and S0/E
706: ratio, our $HEC$ and $LCE$ clusters coincide with the low-S0/E and high-S0/E
707: sub-sets, respectively.
708:
709: \subsection{Evolution in morphological content}
710:
711: We will now investigate the evolution of the galactic morphologies
712: by comparing our results with other studies at lower and higher redshift.
713:
714: Before performing this comparison, we have applied 3 different statistical
715: corrections to our raw counts in Table~4:
716: (i) The correction for incompleteness due to the irregular shape
717: of the area surveyed was computed according to the procedure outlined
718: in the previous section (see caption of Fig.7).
719: (ii) The systematic differences in the morphological classifications
720: between WJC+MORPHS and GF (see \S3), were corrected for my making the
721: appropriate adjustments to GF's morphological counts. Specifically,
722: we have multiplied GF's S0 counts by 73/57 and, in
723: order to preserve the total counts, we have taken the differential counts
724: from both the E and Sp populations according to the relative percentages
725: given in section 3 (75\% and 25\% , respectively).
726: (iii) The field contamination was determined from the galaxy number counts
727: given by Metcalfe et al.\ (1995) and the breakdown into morphological classes
728: (E/S0/Sp=18:27:56) was computed for our limiting magnitudes at $z\sim
729: 0.2$ from the fits to the differential number counts of the Medium
730: Deep Survey (S97). The background assumed is listed for each cluster
731: in Table~5 which is available in CD-ROM form.
732: The number of contaminating early-type galaxies
733: was found to agree with the number of probable background galaxies
734: redder than the elliptical sequence in the color-magnitude plots, hence
735: local background variations should not be dramatic towards
736: the clusters in this sample. As it will be clear in the following discussion,
737: the uncertainty introduced by the field contamination has negligible
738: consequences on our results.
739:
740: At higher redshifts, we consider the MORPHS distant cluster sample plus
741: five additional clusters in the range $z=0.2-0.3$. The latter include the
742: 3 clusters at $z\sim 0.3$ from the $HST$-based morphological study of
743: Couch et al. (1998), together with A2218 and A1689 (both at
744: $z=0.18$) for which archival HST/WFPC-2 images were available. These
745: images were used by WJC to morphologically classify the galaxies in
746: A2218 and A1689, in the same way as was done for the Couch et al. and
747: MORPHS studies. Details of all 5 clusters are given in Table~6; hereafter
748: we shall refer to them as the C98+ sample.
749:
750: As for our clusters, the morphological number counts
751: of the MORPHS and the C98+ samples have been computed down to
752: $M_V=-20$ and the raw counts have been corrected for
753: incompleteness due to the irregular shape of the area surveyed,
754: (according to the procedure outlined earlier) and for field
755: contamination. The latter were determined from the morphological galaxy
756: number counts of the Medium Deep
757: Survey as in S97. The magnitude limits adopted for the C98+ clusters
758: are listed in Table~6. The limits for the MORPHS dataset are
759: $M_{lim}^{D97}-1$\,mag,
760: where $M_{lim}^{D97}$ is given in Table~1 of D97.\footnote{In fact, due
761: to a transcription error in D97, $M_{lim}^{D97}$ corresponds to $M_V=-19$.}
762: The magnitude limits were derived adopting the transformations between the
763: $HST$ and standard photometric bands given by Holtzman et al. (1995).
764: The Cousins $I$-band
765: calibration of the HST A1689 image was kindly provided by I. Smail.
766:
767: \hbox{~}
768: \vspace{-2.0cm}
769: \centerline{\psfig{file=f8.eps,angle=-90,width=6.5in}}
770: \vspace{-1in}
771: \noindent{\scriptsize
772: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
773: \hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~8.} \
774: Corrected cumulative distributions of ellipticals in the MORPHS and
775: C98+ clusters (panel a and b, respectively), compared with
776: the corresponding distributions from our lower redshift sample (panel c).
777: Full and dotted lines represent clusters above and below the
778: arbitrary cut--off point $R=300$\,kpc, $N_{CC}$=12 (asterisk).
779: The numbers at the end of each line
780: identify the clusters according to the ranking order in
781: Table~4 (our sample), in Table~6 (C98+ sample)
782: and according to the following order for the MORPHS sample:
783: 1) Cl1447; 2) Cl0024; 3) Cl0939; 4) Cl0303; 5) 3C295; 6) Cl0412;
784: 7) Cl1601; 8) Cl0016; 9) Cl0054.
785: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
786: }
787:
788: To discuss the distant cluster data in the framework of the previously
789: noted S0/E dichotomy, we have also tried to classify the MORPHS and
790: the C98+ clusters according to our bimodal scheme $HEC$/$LEC$.
791: In Figure~8, the corrected cumulative counts ($N_{CC}$) of the elliptical
792: galaxies in the MORPHS and C98+ samples (Fig.~8a,b) are
793: compared with the distributions in our sample (Fig.~8c; see
794: also Fig.~7a).
795: Even if no clear separation between $HEC$ and $LEC$
796: exists among the clusters in Figures 8a and 8b, we have tentatively
797: divided both samples according to the arbitrary criterion (also
798: working in Fig.~8c for our sample) that clusters having
799: $N_{CC}(R=300$\,kpc)$>$12~($<$12) belong to the $HEC$~($LEC$) family
800: (see asterisks and dashed lines in Fig.~8).
801:
802: \begin{table*}
803: {\scriptsize
804: \begin{center}
805: \centerline{\sc Table 6: C98+ sample}
806: \vspace{0.1cm}
807: %\centerline{\sc }
808: %\vspace{0.3cm}
809: \begin{tabular}{lcccl}
810: \hline\hline
811: \noalign{\smallskip}
812: {Cluster} & z & Area($\rm Mpc^2$) & Ref. & $M_{lim}$ \cr %& E & S0 & Sp \cr
813: \hline
814: \noalign{\medskip}
815: %\multispan{11}{\hfil{Cluster~Sample}\hfil}\cr
816: %\noalign{\smallskip}
817: 1) A2218 & 0.171 & 0.4 & WJC & 19.48 F702W (HST R)\cr %& 17 & 9 & 12 \cr
818: 2) A1689 & 0.181 & 1.0 & WJC & 19.17 I \cr %& 32 & 33 & 23
819: 3) AC118 & 0.308 & 0.6 & C98 & 20.80 F702W (HST R)\cr %& 18 & 34 & 16 \cr
820: 4) AC103 & 0.311 & 0.6 & C98 & 20.80 F702W (HST R)\cr %& 13 & 14 & 18 \cr
821: 5) AC114 & 0.312 & 1.0 & C98 & 20.80 F702W (HST R)\cr %& 22 & 30 & 40 \cr
822: \noalign{\smallskip}
823: \noalign{\hrule}
824: \noalign{\smallskip}
825: \end{tabular}
826: \end{center}
827: }
828: \vspace*{-0.8cm}
829: \end{table*}
830:
831: At low redshift, we refer to D80a and Oemler (1974; hereafter O74) as
832: local benchmarks. The morphological fractions and ratios of the high- and
833: low--concentration nearby clusters (with a 1\,Mpc$^2$ area cut) of D80a
834: were obtained from Table~2 and Fig.~3 in D97. In the following
835: figures we also plot the values quoted by Oemler (1974, O74) for
836: different cluster types. Oemler divided clusters at low redshift into
837: three groups: spiral-rich (SR), elliptical-rich (ER) and S0-rich (S0R,
838: named spiral-poor by O74) according to their galaxy content (ER:
839: E:S0:Sp=3:4:2; SR: E:S0:Sp=1:2:3; S0R: E:S0:Sp=1:2:1). We will come
840: back to this point in \S6; here we want to stress that Oemler's low
841: redshift points should be considered only as indicative because they
842: were not found applying the same magnitude and area limits used in
843: this work and have been taken from the approximate ratios given by
844: O74. Moreover, it is also worth stressing that the correspondence
845: between the D80a high(low)--concentration clusters and our
846: $HEC$($LEC$) clusters is far from being demonstrated.
847:
848: The fully-corrected morphological fractions and ratios of all the clusters as a
849: function of redshift are presented in Figs.~9 and 10, highlighting the
850: $HEC$/$LEC$ dichotomy (filled/open symbols represent $HEC$/$LEC$
851: clusters respectively).
852: In order to evaluate the errors associated with background subtraction,
853: we have computed the changes in the morphological fractions
854: that occur if the field correction for each cluster and galactic type
855: is varied by an amount equal to the correction itself (100\% error, see Table~5
856: available in CD-ROM form).
857: The variation in the morphological fractions is on average
858: 0.03, ranging between 0.01 and 0.08. In Figs.~9 and 10 the errorbars
859: represent the Poissonian errors due to the small numbers of galaxies
860: and are typically greater than 0.1. Therefore the Poissonian errors
861: always dominate over the errors due to field subtraction.
862:
863: In spite of the large errors, it is clear from these
864: figures that there are systematic trends with z: the
865: spiral fraction declines and the S0 fraction rises in going towards
866: lower redshifts. The morphological fractions in our clusters are
867: intermediate
868: between the high and the low redshift values and seem to trace a
869: continuous change of the abundance of S0 and spiral
870: galaxies. In contrast, the elliptical fraction (top panel in
871: Fig.~9) shows no particular trend with redshift, but rather
872: a large scatter from cluster to cluster at any epoch. The
873: mirror-like trends of the S0 and spiral fractions (Figures~9b,c) are
874: well represented by the behaviour of the S0/Sp ratio in
875: Fig.~10b. From this, we can confidently argue that, as the redshift
876: becomes lower, the S0 population tends to grow at the
877: expense of the spiral population.
878: \footnote{While
879: this paper was being refereed, a morphological study of the cluster
880: CL1358+62 at z=0.33 appeared as a preprint (Fabricant, Franx \& van Dokkum
881: 2000). The area covered in this study is bigger than the area considered
882: here; neverthless, the morphological fractions -- as independently
883: classified by the authors
884: and by A. Dressler -- fall in both cases within the typical values
885: observed at that redshift in Fig.~9.}
886:
887: Figure~10a suggests the existence of a large intrinsic scatter in the
888: S0/E ratio, which, at least within our sample, can be mostly ascribed
889: to the different cluster morphologies: clusters showing a marked
890: concentration of ellipticals in the central region have lower S0/E
891: ratios with respect to the clusters in which E galaxies are more or
892: less uniformly distributed inside the cluster area. A similar tendency
893: is possibly seen at higher redshift as well and at low redshift
894: comparing elliptical-rich and S0-rich clusters. The dotted and dashed
895: straight lines in Figure~10a represent the formal least--square weighted
896: fits (0.09$<$z$<$0.65) to the HEC and LEC clusters, respectively. In
897: spite of the scatter, likely due to the intrinsic dependency of the
898: S0/E ratio on the cluster morphology, the trend with redshift found by
899: D97 (full line in Figure~10a) turns out to be confirmed.
900:
901: \hbox{~}
902: \vspace{-2.0cm}
903: \centerline{\psfig{file=f9.eps,angle=0,width=6.5in}}
904: \vspace{-0.2in}
905: \noindent{\scriptsize
906: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
907: \hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~9.} \
908: Morphological fractions as a function of redshift. $HEC$ and $LEC$ clusters
909: are displayed as solid and open symbols, respectively. The
910: values from our sample are indicated by circles, whereas those
911: from the MORPHS and C98+ samples are indicated with squares
912: and triangles, respectively. All these data are corrected both for field
913: contamination and for the irregular shape of the area surveyed (see text).
914: The errorbars correspond to Poissonian values.
915: The average values derived for high- ({\it large solid squares})
916: and low--concentration ({\it large open squares}) clusters from D80
917: (see text) are plotted at $z \sim 0$.
918: Oemler's datapoints are indicated with letters (E = elliptical-rich;
919: L = S0-rich; S = spiral-rich) and are placed at $z<0$ for display purposes.
920: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
921: }
922:
923: \hbox{~}
924: \vspace{0.8in}
925: \centerline{\psfig{file=f10.eps,angle=0,width=6.5in}}
926: \vspace{-0.2in}
927: \noindent{\scriptsize
928: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
929: \hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~10.} \
930: The S0/E and S0/Sp ratios as a function of redshift. The meaning of
931: the symbols is as in Fig.~9. The dotted and dashed lines in the top
932: panel represent the least square weighted fits (0.09$<$z$<$0.65) to
933: the HEC and LEC clusters, respectively. The linear regression of the
934: MORPHS data given by D97 is represented by the {\it solid} line.
935: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
936: }
937:
938: %\hbox{~}
939: %\vspace{0.8in}
940: %\centerline{\psfig{file=f11.eps,angle=0,width=6.5in}}
941: %\vspace{-2in}
942: %\noindent{\scriptsize
943: %\addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
944: %\hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~11.} \
945: %The S0/E ratio as a function of redshift after correcting
946: %GF's morphological classifications
947: %for the systematic differences with the MORPHS/WJC (E -10\%, S0 +25\%,
948: %Sp -4\%). Symbols as in Fig.~9.
949: %\addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
950: %}
951:
952: \section{The morphology-density relation}
953:
954: In this section we examine the relative occurrence of each
955: morphological type as a function of the local projected density of
956: galaxies (i.e. the morphology-density relation). The local densities
957: have been computed -- following D80a and D97 -- in a rectangular area
958: containing the 10 nearest neighbors. In Figure~11 we present the
959: local density distributions of galaxies of the different morphological
960: types (upper panels), together with the corresponding distributions of
961: morphological fractions (lower panels) for our global cluster sample
962: (leftmost panels), as well as the
963: $LEC$ and $HEC$ sub-samples (middle and rightmost panels).
964:
965: \hbox{~}
966: \centerline{\psfig{file=f11.eps,angle=-90,width=6.5in}}
967: %\vspace{-0.5in}
968: \noindent{\scriptsize
969: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-3pt}
970: \hspace*{0.3cm} {\bf Fig.~11.} \
971: Number and fraction of galaxies of different morphological types
972: as a function of the local density for the 9 clusters in our sample
973: (leftmost panels) and for the sub-samples of $LEC$ (middle panels)
974: and $HEC$ (rightmost panels) clusters. The distributions of
975: elliptical, S0 and spiral galaxies are indicated with a full line,
976: a dotted line and a shaded histogram, respectively.
977: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{3pt}
978: }
979:
980: Apart from the different value of the global S0/Sp ratios, our
981: distributions (Fig.~11d, e and f) look qualitatively very similar to
982: those of the MORPHS sample (Figs.~4, ~5 and ~6 in D97), particularly
983: if we compare our $HEC$ and $LEC$ cluster families with the
984: high- and low-concentration families in D97. As in the higher
985: redshift clusters, a morphology-density relation is present in highly
986: concentrated clusters and absent in the low concentration clusters
987: where a possible small {\it anticorrelation} can be noted both here
988: and in D97. The fact that the density distributions at $z \sim 0.1$
989: resemble those at $z \sim 0.5$ much more closely than those at $z \sim
990: 0$ could suggest that the morphology-density relation in low
991: concentration clusters was established in the last 1-2 Gyr, but a definite
992: conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of the available data.
993:
994: Another remarkable feature of the MD distributions is that, moving
995: from high redshift to the intermediate redshift regime, the
996: fraction of Es as a function of the local density appears to be
997: practically unchanged for both $HEC$ and $LEC$ clusters, i.e. the
998: elliptical-density relations at $z=0.2$ are also {\it quantitatively}
999: similar to that of the MORPHS sample at $z=0.5$. We also note that the
1000: $LEC$ distributions remain relatively flat over this redshift interval,
1001: while a strong increase in the S0/Sp fraction takes
1002: place (compare our Fig.~12e with Fig.~8 in D97). This suggests that in
1003: the $LEC$ clusters the Sp$\rightarrow$S0 transformation process is
1004: highly efficient and that the efficiency is largely independent of
1005: local density. In contrast, the S0-- and spiral--density distributions in
1006: $HEC$ clusters at the two different redshifts
1007: (compare our Fig.~11f with Fig.~6 in D97), have quite different
1008: slopes, suggesting that the process of
1009: transfer from spirals to S0s is more efficient in low density regions
1010: than in high density ones. The above analysis is based on the
1011: comparison of two rather small cluster samples and, therefore, it
1012: needs to be confirmed by the morphological study of more sizeable
1013: samples. Nevertheless, there is the suggestion that, at least in our
1014: range of observed local densities (1.3$\ls\log\rho\ls$2.4), the efficiency
1015: of the possible transition from spiral to S0 morphology seems to increase
1016: with decreasing local density.
1017:
1018: Finally, the fact that no MD relation is found in our $LEC$ clusters
1019: demonstrates that the dichotomy in the S0/E ratio discussed in the
1020: previous section cannot merely be ascribed to a universal MD relation
1021: at $z=0.2$ combined with different density ranges for the $HEC$ and
1022: $LEC$ clusters: the two types of clusters are intrinsically different
1023: both in their global morphological content and in the arrangement of
1024: the morphological types as a function of the local density.
1025:
1026: \section{Conclusions}
1027:
1028: 1) The morphological properties of the galaxy populations in nine
1029: clusters at $z=0.1-0.25$ are found to be intermediate between those at
1030: $z\sim 0.4-0.5$ and those at low-z, with a moderate spiral content and
1031: a moderate ``deficiency'' (as compared to lower redshifts) of S0
1032: galaxies. Our results support the evolutionary scenario, inferred
1033: from higher redshift studies (D97, S97, Couch et al. 1998), involving
1034: the disk galaxy populations in which there is a progressive
1035: morphological conversion in clusters, from spirals into S0's.
1036:
1037: 2) At $z\sim 0.2$, we find a dichotomy in the relative occurrence of S0
1038: and elliptical galaxies: four of our clusters display a low S0/E ratio
1039: ($\sim 0.8$) while two of our clusters have a significantly higher
1040: ratio ($\sim 1.9$) similar to the other clusters in our sample at
1041: $z=0.1$. The most likely interpretation of this dichotomy and of the
1042: large scatter in the S0/E ratio at $z\sim 0.2$ is that such a ratio is
1043: both a function of the redshift and of the cluster ``type'', being
1044: significantly lower in clusters with a strong central concentration of
1045: elliptical galaxies.
1046:
1047: 3) At $z\sim 0.1-0.2$ a morphology-density relation exists only for the
1048: high-concentration clusters and is absent in the low-concentration
1049: ones. The same result was found at $z \sim 0.5$ (D97), while at low
1050: redshift the correlation between galaxy morphology and local density
1051: is present in all types of clusters of the D80a sample. Although the number of
1052: galaxies is too small to draw definite conclusions, these results seem
1053: to suggest that the morphology-density relation in low-concentration
1054: clusters was established only in the last 1-2 Gyr, but only
1055: additional data and a homogeneous systematic analysis
1056: both at low and moderate redshifts will clarify this matter. Moreover,
1057: comparing our MD relations with the corresponding ones at $z \sim 0.5$
1058: (D97), we suggest that the efficiency of the Sp$\rightarrow$S0
1059: transformation process anticorrelates with the local density.
1060:
1061: The relation between the S0/E ratio and the spatial concentration of the
1062: ellipticals is not surprising in the light of the well-known
1063: correlations between the galaxy content and the cluster type
1064: in low-redshift clusters. As mentioned in \S4, Oemler (1974)
1065: grouped clusters in three classes: spiral-rich (SR), elliptical-rich
1066: (ER, the most spherical in shape and concentrated) and S0-rich (S0R,
1067: named ``spiral-poor'' by O74, ``not quite as centrally concentrated as
1068: the ER class, but more regular than the SR class'').
1069: Interestingly, O74 suggested that S0-rich clusters are dynamically
1070: evolved clusters (they already show segregation by mass and
1071: morphological type) representing a later evolutionary stage of
1072: spiral-rich clusters, following the evolution of a significant
1073: fraction of the spiral galaxies into S0's. In contrast, in the
1074: scenario proposed by O74, E-rich clusters are well evolved but
1075: \sl intrinsically different \rm from the S0R clusters:
1076: although possibly the dynamically oldest
1077: type of clusters, their high elliptical content implies that
1078: they did not evolve from the spiral-rich clusters and is likely due to
1079: an enhanced formation rate of ellipticals in regions that began
1080: as the densest fluctuations in the early universe.
1081:
1082: We speculate that in our sample at $z \sim 0.2$, the four clusters with
1083: a strong central concentration of ellipticals (and the lowest S0/E ratios)
1084: are presumably the analogues (and progenitors) of the low-z E-rich clusters
1085: (see the extrapolation at low redshift of dotted line in Figure~10a),
1086: while the low-concentration clusters (with the highest S0/E ratio)
1087: seem to be the analogues of the ``S0-rich'' clusters.
1088:
1089: The effects of redshift (evolution) and cluster type are expected
1090: to mingle in various proportions at the different epochs.
1091: Following O74, we suggest that the relative occurrence of S0's and spirals
1092: is mostly linked with the ``maturity'' of the cluster with spirals
1093: progressively evolving into S0's,
1094: while the ellipticals are well in place at redshifts greater than those
1095: considered here and their abundance and concentration reflect an
1096: ``original imprinting'' (see also D97). Then, the S0/Sp ratio should
1097: be related to the evolutionary epoch of the cluster and the S0/E value
1098: should be determined both by the epoch and the cluster type
1099: (nurture and nature, in a way),
1100: with the redshift being the dominant effect at early epochs.
1101: \footnote{If the ER and S0R clusters are the endpoints of the evolution of two
1102: originally-different types of clusters and both types experienced the
1103: accretion of large numbers of spirals that with time turned into S0's,
1104: then when looking further back in time, the difference in the S0/E
1105: ratio between the precursors of the ER and of the S0R clusters should
1106: become smaller and smaller: at $z\sim 0.4-0.5$ all types of clusters
1107: are expected to display a low S0/E ratio (with smaller fluctuations
1108: among the different types of clusters), as indeed is observed in the
1109: MORPHS dataset, simply because many of the S0's have not yet formed.}
1110:
1111: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1112:
1113: Based on observations made with the Nordic Optical Telescope, La
1114: Palma, and the Danish 1.5-m telescope at ESO, La Silla, Chile. The
1115: Nordic Optical Telescope is operated jointly by Denmark, Finland,
1116: Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de
1117: los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.
1118:
1119: The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for
1120: the prompt refereeing that helped us to improve the rigor
1121: and clarity of this paper.
1122: BMP and WJC warmly thank Ian Smail for providing the images and
1123: the photometric catalog of A1689, for his valuable assistance in
1124: this project, for carefully reading the manuscript
1125: and suggesting a number of changes that improved the paper. They are also
1126: thankful to their collegues of the MORPHS group for many interesting
1127: discussions and useful advice.
1128:
1129: This work was supported by the Formation and Evolution of Galaxies
1130: network set up by the European Commission under contract ERB
1131: FMRX-CT96-086 of its TMR program and by the Danish Natural Science
1132: Research Council through its Centre for Ground-Based Observational
1133: Astronomy. WJC acknowledges the Schools of Physics at Bristol
1134: and St Andrews Universities and the European Southern Observatory
1135: for their hospitality during the course of this work.
1136: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
1137: (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech,
1138: under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
1139:
1140:
1141: \newpage
1142: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1143: \itemsep=0in
1144:
1145: \bibitem{}
1146: Abadi, M.\,G., Moore, B., Bower, R.\,G., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 947
1147:
1148: \bibitem{}
1149: Andreon, S., Davoust, E., Heim, T., 1997, A\&A, 323, 337
1150:
1151: \bibitem{}
1152: Andreon, S., 1998, ApJ, 501, 533
1153:
1154: \bibitem{}
1155: Barger, A.\,J., Arag\`on-Salamanca, A., Smail, I.,
1156: Ellis, R.\,S., Couch, W.\,J., Dressler, A., Oemler, A.\ Jr, Poggianti, B.\,M,
1157: Sharples, R.\,M., 1998, ApJ, 501, 522
1158:
1159: \bibitem{}
1160: Bautz, L.P., Morgan, W.W, 1970, ApJ, 162, L149
1161:
1162: \bibitem{}
1163: Bertin, A., Arnouts, S., 1996, A\&AS, 117,393
1164:
1165: \bibitem{}
1166: Butcher, H., Oemler, A.\ Jr. 1978, ApJ, 226, 559
1167:
1168: \bibitem{}
1169: Butcher, H., Oemler, A.\ Jr. 1984, ApJ, 285, 426
1170:
1171: \bibitem{}
1172: Capaccioli, M., Vietri, M., Held, E.V., Lorenz, H., 1991, ApJ, 371, 535
1173:
1174: \bibitem{}
1175: Couch, W.\,J., Barger, A.\,J., Smail, I., Ellis, R.\,S., Sharples, R.\,M.,
1176: 1998, ApJ, 497, 188
1177:
1178: \bibitem{}
1179: Couch, W.\,J., Ellis, R.\,S., Sharples, R.\,M., Smail, I., 1994, ApJ, 430,
1180: 121
1181:
1182: \bibitem{}
1183: Dressler, A., 1980a, ApJ, 236, 351 (D80)
1184:
1185: \bibitem{}
1186: Dressler, A., 1980b, ApJS, 424, 565 (DCAT80)
1187:
1188: \bibitem{}
1189: Dressler, A., Oemler, A.\ Jr., Butcher, H., Gunn, J.\,E., 1994, ApJ, 430, 107
1190:
1191: \bibitem{}
1192: Dressler, A., Oemler, A.\ Jr., Couch, W.\,J., Smail, I.,
1193: Ellis, R.\,S., Barger, A., Butcher, H., Poggianti, B.\,M., Sharples,
1194: R.\,M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 577 (D97)
1195:
1196: \bibitem{}
1197: Dressler, A., Smail, I., Poggianti, B.\,M., Butcher, H., Couch, W.\,J.,
1198: Ellis, R.\,S., Oemler, A.\ Jr., 1999, ApJS, 122, 51
1199:
1200: \bibitem{}
1201: Ebeling, H., Edge, A., Bohringer, H., Allen, S., Crawford, C.,
1202: Fabian, A., Voges, W., Huchra, J., 1998, MNRAS, 301, 881
1203:
1204: \bibitem{}
1205: Ellis, R.\,S., Smail, I., Dressler, A., Couch. W.\,J., Oemler, A.\ Jr.,
1206: Butcher, H., Sharples, R.\,M., 1997, ApJ, 483, 582
1207:
1208: \bibitem{}
1209: Fabricant, D., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P., 2000, ApJ, in press
1210: (astro-ph 0003360)
1211:
1212: \bibitem{}
1213: Fasano, G., Bettoni, D., D'Onofrio, M., Kj\ae rgaard, P., Moles, M., 2000,
1214: in preparation
1215:
1216: \bibitem{}
1217: Fasano, G., Vio, R., 1991, MNRAS, 249, 629
1218:
1219: \bibitem{}
1220: Franceschini, A., Silva, L., Fasano, G., Granato, G.L., Bressan, A., Arnouts,
1221: S., Danese, L., 1998, ApJ, 506, 600
1222:
1223: \bibitem{}
1224: Frei, Z., Guhathakurta, P., Gunn, J.\,E., Tyson, J.\,A., 1996, AnJ,
1225: 111, 174
1226:
1227: \bibitem{}
1228: Holtzman, J.\,A., Burrows, C.\,J., Casertano, S., Hester, J.\,J., Trauger, J.\,T., Watson, A.\,M., Worthey, G., 1995, PASP, 107, 1065
1229:
1230: \bibitem{}
1231: Jones, C., Forman, W., 1999, ApJ, 511, 65
1232:
1233: \bibitem{}
1234: Jorgensen, I., 1994, PASP, 106, 967
1235:
1236: \bibitem{}
1237: Kelson, D.\,D., van Dokkum, P.\,G., Franx, M., Illingworth, G.\,D.,
1238: Fabricant, D., 1997, ApJ, 478, L13
1239:
1240: \bibitem{}
1241: Kelson, D.\,D., Illingworth, G.\,D., van Dokkum, P.\,G., Franx, M.,
1242: 1999, ApJ, in press (astro-ph 9906152)
1243:
1244: \bibitem{}
1245: Landolt, A.U., 1992, AJ, 104,340
1246:
1247: \bibitem{}
1248: Lavery, R.\,J., Henry, J.\,P., 1988, ApJ, 330, 596
1249:
1250: \bibitem{}
1251: Lavery, R.\,J., Pierce, M.\,J., McClure, R.\,D., 1992, AJ, 104, 2067
1252:
1253: \bibitem{}
1254: Lavery, R.\,J., Henry, J.\,P., 1994, ApJ, 426, 524
1255:
1256: \bibitem{}
1257: Lubin, L.\,M., Postman, M., Oke, J.\,B., Ratnatunga, K.U., Gunn, J.\,E.,
1258: Hoessel, J.\,G., Schneider, D.\,P., 1998, ApJ, 116, 584
1259:
1260: \bibitem{}
1261: Mathis, J.\,S., 1990, ARAA, 28, 37
1262:
1263: \bibitem{}
1264: Metcalfe, N., Shanks, T., Fong, R., Roche, N., 1995, MNRAS, 273, 257
1265:
1266: \bibitem{}
1267: Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., Oemler, A.\ Jr. 1996,
1268: Nature, 379, 613
1269:
1270: \bibitem{}
1271: Moore, B., Lake, G., Katz, N., 1998, ApJ, 495, 139
1272:
1273: \bibitem{}
1274: Oemler, A.\,Jr., 1974, ApJ, 194, 1
1275:
1276: \bibitem{}
1277: Oemler, A.\ Jr., Dressler, A., Butcher, H., 1997, ApJ, 474, 561
1278:
1279: \bibitem{}
1280: Poggianti, B.\,M., 1997, A\&AS, 122, 399
1281:
1282: \bibitem{}
1283: Poggianti, B.\,M., Smail, I., Dressler, A., Couch, W.\,J., Barger, A.\,J.,
1284: Butcher, H., Ellis, R.\,S., Oemler, A.\,Jr., 1999, ApJ, 518, 576
1285:
1286: \bibitem{}
1287: Pignatelli, E.,Fasano, G., 1999, Proceedings: {\it First Italian Workshop
1288: of the "Network sulla formazione ed evoluzione delle galassie"},
1289: http://www.brera.mi.astro.it/docB/galaxy/news.html
1290:
1291: \bibitem{}
1292: Rood, H.J., Sastry, G.N., 1971, PASP, 83, 313
1293:
1294: \bibitem{}
1295: Simien, F., de Vaucouleurs, G., 1986, ApJ, 302, 564
1296:
1297: \bibitem{}
1298: Smail, I., Dressler, A., Couch, W.\,J., Ellis, R.\,S., Oemler,
1299: A.\ Jr, Butcher, H., Sharples, R.\,M., 1997, ApJS, 110, 213 (S97)
1300:
1301: \bibitem{}
1302: Smail, I., Edge, A.\,C., Ellis, R.\,E., Blandford, R.\,D., 1998, MNRAS,
1303: 293 124
1304:
1305: \bibitem{}
1306: Thompson, L.\,A., 1986, ApJ, 300, 639
1307:
1308: \bibitem{}
1309: Thompson, L.\,A., 1988, ApJ, 324, 112
1310:
1311: \bibitem{}
1312: van Dokkum, P.\,G., Franx, M., 1996, MNRAS, 281, 985
1313:
1314: \bibitem{}
1315: van Dokkum, P.\,G., Franx, M., Kelson, D.\,D., Illingworth, G.\,D., Fisher,
1316: D., Fabricant, D., 1998, ApJ, 500, 714
1317:
1318: \bibitem{}
1319: van Dokkum, P.G., Franx, M., Fabricant, D., Kelson, D.\,D.,
1320: Illingworth, G.\,D., 1999, ApJ, 520, L95
1321:
1322: \bibitem{}
1323: van Dokkum, P.G., Franx, M., Fabricant, D.,
1324: Illingworth, G.\,D., Kelson, D.\,D., 2000, ApJ, in press
1325: (astro-ph 0002507)
1326:
1327: \bibitem{}
1328: Wirth, G.\,D., Koo, D.\,C., Kron, R.\,G., 1994, ApJ, 435, L105
1329:
1330: \end{thebibliography}
1331: \smallskip
1332:
1333:
1334: \end{document}
1335:
1336: