1: %\documentclass{article}

2: %\usepackage[onecolumn]{emulateapj}

3: %\usepackage{epsf}

4: 

5: 

6: \def\p{\phantom{1}}

7: \def\q{\phantom{22}}

8: \def\lae{\mathrel{<\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

9: \def\gae{\mathrel{>\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

10: \font\fsmall=cmr8

11: 

12: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

13: \documentclass{emulateapj}

14: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

15: %\usepackage{onecolfloat5}

16: 

17: 

18: %\documentclass[11pt,preprint]{aastex}

19: %\documentclass{aastex}

20: 

21: \usepackage{graphicx}

22: 

23: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

24: 

25: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

26: 

27: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

28: 

29: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

30: 

31: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in the Astronomical Journal}

32: 

33: \lefthead{{\sc Jord\'an et al.}}

34: \righthead{Globular Clusters Systems of cD Galaxies}

35: 

36: \begin{document}

37: 

38: \title{{\it Hubble Space Telescope} Observations of cD Galaxies and their Globular

39: Cluster Systems\altaffilmark{1,2}}

40: 

41: \author{Andr\'es Jord\'an\altaffilmark{3}, Patrick C\^ot\'e}

42: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854 \\ 

43: andresj@physics.rutgers.edu, pcote@physics.rutgers.edu}

44: \medskip

45: 

46: \author{Michael J. West}

47: \affil{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Hawaii, Hilo, HI 96720 \\ 

48: west@bohr.uhh.hawaii.edu}

49: \medskip

50: 

51: 

52: \author{Ronald O. Marzke}

53: 

54: \affil{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, San Francisco State University, 

55: 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132 \\ marzke@quark.sfsu.edu}

56: \medskip

57: 

58: \author{Dante Minniti}

59: \affil{Departamento de Astronom\'{\i}a y Astrof\'{\i}sica,

60: P. Universidad Cat\'olica, Casilla 104, Santiago 22, Chile \\ dante@astro.puc.cl}

61: 

62: \and

63: 

64: \author{Marina Rejkuba}

65: \affil{European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, 85748 Garching, Germany \\

66: mrejkuba@eso.org}

67: 

68: \medskip

69: 

70: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations with the NASA/ESA {\sl Hubble Space Telescope}

71: obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association

72: of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555}

73: \altaffiltext{2}{Based in part on observations obtained at the European Southern Observatory, 

74: for the VLT program 68.D-0130(A).

75: }

76: \altaffiltext{3}{Claudio Anguita Fellow}

77: 

78: \begin{abstract}

79: We have used WFPC2 on the {\sl Hubble Space Telescope} to obtain F450W and 

80: F814W images of four cD galaxies (NGC~541 in Abell~194, NGC~2832 in Abell~779, 

81: NGC~4839 in Abell~1656 and NGC~7768 in Abell~2666) 

82: in the range $5400 \lesssim cz \lesssim$ $8100$ km s$^{-1}$.  For NGC~541, 

83: the {\sl HST} data are supplemented by ground-based $B$ and $I$ images 

84: obtained with the FORS1 on the VLT. We present surface brightness and

85: color profiles for each of the four galaxies, confirming their classification

86: as cD galaxies. Isophotal analyses 

87: reveal the presence of subarcsecond-scale dust 

88: disks in the nuclei of NGC~541 and NGC~7768. 

89: Despite the extreme nature of these galaxies in terms of spatial extent

90: and luminosity, our analysis of their globular cluster systems 

91: reveals no anomalies in terms of specific frequencies,

92: metallicity gradients, average metallicities, or the metallicity offset

93: between the globulars and the host galaxy. We show that the latter

94: offset appears roughly constant at $\Delta\mbox{[Fe/H]}\sim$ 0.8~dex for 

95: early-type galaxies spanning a luminosity range of roughly four orders of magnitude.

96: We combine the globular cluster metallicity 

97: distributions with an empirical technique described in a series of earlier

98: papers to investigate the form of the protogalactic mass spectrum 

99: in these cD galaxies. We find that the observed GC metallicity

100: distributions are consistent with those expected if cD

101: galaxies form through the cannibalism of numerous galaxies

102: and protogalactic fragments which formed their stars and

103: globular clusters before capture and disruption. However,

104: the properties of their GC systems suggest that dynamical

105: friction is {\it not} the primary mechanism by which these galaxies are

106: assembled. We argue that cDs instead form rapidly,

107: via hierarchical merging, prior to cluster virialization.

108: \end{abstract}

109: 

110: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and cD --- galaxies: individual (NGC 541, NGC 2832, NGC 4839,

111: NGC 7768) --- galaxies: star clusters --- galaxies: structure}

112: 

113: \section{Introduction}

114: \label{sec:intro}

115: 

116: In spatial extent and luminosity, cD galaxies are intermediate between normal 

117: galaxies and galaxy clusters. Indeed, the cD classification itself was introduced 

118: in the work of Matthews, Morgan \& Schmidt (1964) to denote the very large

119: D galaxies that they found in some clusters. (The `c' prefix was borrowed from 

120: the notation for supergiant stars in stellar spectroscopy.) Although the

121: extraordinary sizes of cD galaxies was readily apparent to Matthews et~al. (1964), 

122: the outstanding nature of their distinctive envelopes was fully appreciated

123: only after the deep photographic surface photometry of Oemler (1976) and 

124: Schombert (1986; 1988).

125: 

126: In this paper, we adopt the definition of a cD as given in Schombert (1986) and Tonry 

127: (1987). That is, cDs are elliptical galaxies with shallow surface brightness profiles

128: $$d\log\mu_V/d\log r \approx -2 \eqno{(1)}$$ 

129: at $\mu_V \approx 24$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. These galaxies exhibit a characteristic `break' 

130: over an $r^{1/4}$ law, beginning at $r_b \approx 10-100$~kpc, and are

131: much brighter than typical elliptical galaxies, with luminosities $\sim$ 

132: 10$L^*$ (Sandage \& Hardy 1973; Schombert 1986).

133: %No cD galaxy has ever been observed in the field, 

134: cD galaxies are always found in dense regions,

135: and in virtually all cases, they are 

136: located near the spatial and kinematical center of their host cluster, or subcluster.

137: These facts would seem to suggest that the formation of cD galaxies is unique to 

138: the cluster environment and is closely linked to its dynamical history.

139: 

140: There are, in fact, reasons to believe that the envelopes themselves are

141: distinct entities from the galaxies themselves. First, cD envelope luminosity 

142: is weakly correlated with some properties of the host cluster, most notably with

143: cluster richness and  X-ray luminosity (Schombert 1988). Second, the envelopes 

144: have surface brightness profiles with power-law slopes that are similar to those

145: measured from the surface density profiles of the surrounding cluster galaxies.

146: Finally, both the position angle and ellipticity of cD galaxy isophotes commonly

147: show discontinuities at $r_b$, where the envelope begins to dominate the surface 

148: brightness profile (Schombert 1988; Porter, Schneider \& Hoessel 1991).

149: 

150: Models for the formation of cD galaxies have tended to focus on dynamical effects that, 

151: in dense environments, might produce extended low-surface-brightness envelopes.

152: A tidal stripping origin was first proposed by Gallagher \& Ostriker (1972), and 

153: examined in detail by Richstone (1976). In this scenario, close encounters

154: between galaxies liberate material which surrounds the central galaxy;

155: if the velocity of the encounter is sufficiently low, the interaction may

156: result in a merger. The most massive galaxies would be preferentially depleted as they are most

157: strongly affected by dynamical friction. If many such mergers occur, then the 

158: central galaxy may grow primarily through this process of ``cannibalism".  The rates 

159: for galactic cannibalism in rich clusters were computed first with approximate 

160: theories that used average interaction rates without considering the actual 

161: galaxy trajectories (Ostriker \& Tremaine 1975; White 1976), and later with 

162: Monte Carlo techniques (Hausman \& Ostriker 1978). These calculations predicted 

163: rather high cannibalism rates in rich clusters, leading to a luminosity 

164: growth of the first ranked of $\gae10L^{*}$ over the lifetime of the host cluster. 

165: The finding that $\sim$ 50\% of brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) contain multiple 

166: nuclei ($e.g.$, Hoessel \& Schneider 1985) has sometimes been interpreted as 

167: supporting evidence for this model. 

168: 

169: Richstone \& Malumuth (1983) carried out more detailed simulations of the

170: growth of central galaxies by following the trajectories of individual

171: galaxies in a fixed cluster potential. Approximately 30\% 

172: of their simulations produced very massive galaxies at the cluster center, which 

173: they identified as cD galaxies. In their simulations, which treated dynamical

174: friction, mergers and tidal stripping simultaneously, the growth of the cD

175: occurred throughout the lifetime of the cluster. Merritt (1984; 1985) reached

176: a rather different conclusion using a statistical description of the 

177: galaxy orbital energy and mass distribution, and a Fokker-Planck treatment 

178: of the evolution of these distributions due to tidal stripping and dynamical 

179: friction. He found that neither tidal stripping nor mergers occur at a 

180: significant rate in rich clusters after virialization, and concluded that 

181: the morphology of BCGs in a rich cluster --- and of cDs in particular --- 

182: is fixed during the early stages of cluster evolution, probably during 

183: the collapse and virialization of compact groups or poor clusters.

184: In the post-collapse stages of evolution, the central galaxy was found

185: to grow in luminosity by only $\sim 1L^*$. Dynamical analysis of galaxies 

186: with multiple-nuclei led Merrifield \& 

187: Kent (1991) and Blakeslee \& Tonry (1992) to conclude such galaxies 

188: have probably increased their luminosities by no more than $\approx$ 1-2$L^{*}$ over a

189: typical cluster lifetime as a result of galactic cannibalism. These findings 

190: are consistent with the modest post-virialization growth rates advocated by 

191: Merritt (1985).

192: 

193: In principle, the formation of central galaxies in cluster and group

194: environments is best studied with high-resolution, N-body simulations

195: ($e.g.$, Funato, Makino \& Ebisuzaki 1993; Bode et~al. 1994; Garijo, 

196: Athanassoula \& Garc\'{\i}a-G\'omez 1997). The results of such simulations,

197: however, depend sensitively on the assumed initial conditions,

198: so it is important to start with a physically-motivated paradigm of 

199: structure formation. The first attempt to do so was by Dubinski (1998), who

200: followed the formation and evolution of the central BCG within a single

201: rich cluster chosen from a cold-dark-matter simulation. In his simulation,

202: which included both stellar and dark matter components, a massive central

203: central galaxy formed via the merger of several massive ``protogalaxies" 

204: early in the cluster history. Due to the filamentary structure of the cluster

205: at these times, the mergers themselves were found to be highly anisotropic, with 

206: the protogalaxies infalling radially along with filaments. In agreement with

207: previous findings, Dubinski (1998) found

208: that cannibalism by dynamical friction during the post-collapse evolution

209: accounts for only a small fraction of the accreted mass. It is worth

210: noting, however, that the central galaxy in his simulation did not

211: develop the extended envelope that is characteristic of cD galaxies.

212: 

213: Another, quite different, formation model for cD galaxies involves cooling 

214: flows (see, $e.g.$, Fabian 1994). Since the radiative cooling times for 

215: intracluster gas are short enough that gas can cool and settle to the cluster 

216: center, it has been suggested that cD envelopes may arise from the gradual 

217: deposition of this cool gas.  However, this possibility now seems 

218: remote in light of {\sl XMM-Newton} observations that the X-ray gas does 

219: not cool significantly below a threshold temperature of $kT \sim$ 1-2 keV 

220: (Kaastra et~al. 2001; Peterson et~al. 2001; Tamura et~al. 2001). 

221: 

222: Clearly, an understanding of the mass distribution of the galaxies and protogalaxies

223: from which cD galaxies were assembled would be helpful in discriminating between 

224: the various models.  Globular clusters (GCs) are useful in this regard since 

225: they are bright (with a mean absolute magnitude of $M_V \simeq -7.3$ mag; 

226: Harris 2001) and are found in large numbers around massive, early-type galaxies. 

227: Moreover, observations of nearby dwarfs and giant ellipticals have shown that there is a 

228: tight correlation between mean GC metallicity and the total galaxy luminosity 

229: ($e.g.$, Brodie \& Huchra 1991). Thus, GCs should be powerful diagnostics of 

230: the cD formation process since the total luminosities and masses of the 

231: cannabilized galaxies (assuming cD galaxies formed in this way) 

232: must be imprinted in the metallicities of their present-day GC systems.

233: Yet color (and thus metallicity) information is available in the literaure for 

234: the GC systems of only five cD

235: galaxies\footnote{Based on the compilation of van den Bergh (2001). Note that we

236: include M87 as a cD galaxy (de Vaucouleurs \& Nieto 1978) and have added 

237: NGC~6166 (Bridges et~al. 1996) to his list.}.

238: 

239: In this paper, we present $B$ and $I$ photometry of the GC systems of four distant cD 

240: galaxies and place 

241: constraints on the distribution of progenitor masses. This sample nearly doubles

242: the number of cD galaxies with GC metallicity distributions.

243: The paper is organized as follows. In \S 2, we describe the observations and data 

244: reduction procedures. \S 3 presents a summary of the observed properties of the 

245: galaxies and their GC systems. In \S 4, we present an analysis of the observed GC

246: metallicity distribution functions. We summarize our findings and draw conclusions

247: in \S 5.

248: 

249: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}

250: 

251: We used WFPC2 on board {\sl HST} to obtain F450W (broadband $B$)

252: and F814W (broadband $I$) images of four cD galaxies: NGC~541, NGC~2832, 

253: NGC~4839 and NGC~7768.  The observations, corresponding to program GO-8184, 

254: are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:log}. Three of the galaxies (NGC~2832, 

255: NGC~4839 and NGC~7768) were selected from the sample of 

256: Schombert (1986). The fourth galaxy, NGC~541, was selected from the

257: compilation of Bird (1994), although it has in the past been variously 

258: classified as D or cD ($e.g.$, Dressler 1980; Bird 1994). To clarify 

259: the issue of its morphological type, we subsequently obtained $B$ and $I$ 

260: images of NGC~541 with the VLT. These data and our analysis of them are 

261: presented in \S \ref{sec:vlthst}. Properties of the host clusters for 

262: each of our program galaxies are summarized in 

263: Table~\ref{tab:prop_clus}.\footnote{Throughout this paper, we identify 

264: NGC~4938 with the subcluster projected $\approx$ 1.1~Mpc to the southwest 

265: of the Coma cluster center.}

266: 

267: The raw WFPC2 data were processed with the standard STScI pipeline using the

268: best available calibration files. We verified  that

269: the images were properly aligned with cross-correlation measurements of the

270: shifts using the DITHER package in IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National 

271: Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities 

272: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National 

273: Science Foundation.}. Cosmic rays were rejected by combining images of 

274: a given galaxy and filter using the IRAF task GCOMBINE.

275: 

276: \subsection{Surface Photometry}

277: \label{sec:sb}

278: 

279: The images were ``mosaiced'' using the task WMOSAIC in the STSDAS package. Bad

280: pixels, regions affected by vignetting, and any remaining cosmic rays were masked. 

281: The images were visually inspected and any bright contaminating objects

282: present in the fields were also masked.  Surface photometry was performed 

283: with the task ELLIPSE, which is based on an algorithm by Jedrzejewski (1987). 

284: The algorithm was run on the $I$ image and the resulting solution  was 

285: transferred to the $B$ band image, where ELLIPSE was run in ``no-fit'' mode. 

286: The conversion to Johnson $B$ and $I$ magntiudes was done in the same manner

287: as for the point sources  (see \S\ref{sec:point}) except that an additional

288: $0.1$ mag  correction was applied to correct the 

289: zeropoints to infinite aperture (Holtzman et~al. 1995).

290: 

291: A common difficulty in performing surface photometry with WFPC2 is the

292: limited field of view, which greatly complicates the estimation of the 

293: background sky brightness. Simply stated, the galaxies are still apparent

294: even in the outskirts of our images.  One approach to this problem is to 

295: fit a parametric curve (such as a de Vaucouleurs

296: law or a power-law model) plus some constant background to a section of the 

297: profile, and estimate the sky directly from the fit. In our case,

298: such a procedure is unsatisfactory. For the cD galaxies examined here,

299: it is risky to assume a specific functional form when there is no

300: {\sl a priori} knowledge of where envelope will appear.  Furthermore,

301: sky measurements arrived at in this way will have independent errors in

302: different bandpasses, potentially biasing the inferred color profiles at 

303: faint levels. Finally, as emphasized by Schombert (1986), no parametric 

304: function can capture the peculiarities of the profiles that may 

305: affect the sky estimates. 

306: 

307: In an attempt to alleviate these problems, we adopted the following procedure. 

308: In the outskirts of our fields, the galaxy contribution to the total intensity, 

309: though non-negligible, is nevertheless small. By estimating the ratio of the 

310: sky intensities directly from the {\sl ratio} image of the $B$ and $I$ images, 

311: it is possible to reduce the uncertainty in the estimated sky color.

312: Let us denote the counts due to the sky in the $I$ and $B$ bandpasses by 

313: $S_I$ and $S_B$, respectively, and the corresponding intensities from the 

314: galaxy light by $G_I$ and $G_B$. Quite generally, the galaxy intensities in

315: the different bandpasses will be certain 

316: fractions of the sky intensities: $i.e.$, $G_I=\alpha S_I$ and $G_B=\beta S_B$. 

317: For a typical giant elliptical, $(B-I)_{gal}\sim2.2$ ($e.g.$, Fukugita, 

318: Shimasaku \& Ichikawa 1995; see below also) whereas the color of the ``sky" seen 

319: by {\sl HST} is $(B-I)_{sky}\sim1.5$ (\textit{HST} Data Handbook). 

320: In general, we then have

321: $$\log(q) \equiv \log(\beta/\alpha) = 0.4\biggl [(B-I)_{sky}-(B-I)_{gal} \biggr ] \eqno{(2)}$$

322: and, if we estimate the ratio, $R$, of the sky intensities in the outskirts of the fields, 

323: $$R=\frac{S_I+\alpha S_I}{S_B+\beta S_B} = \frac{S_I}{S_B}\left(\frac{1+\alpha}{1+q\alpha}\right)\eqno{(3)}$$

324: The value of $R$ was calculated for a range in plausible values of $\alpha$ 

325: and $q$. The distribution of $R$ is sharply peaked at $R\sim 1.023 S_I/S_B$, 

326: with an interquartile range of $\approx 0.01$ and a median of $R=1.025S_I/S_B$.

327: We therefore take $R/1.025$ for our estimate of $S_I/S_B$, with $R$ 

328: estimated directly from the ratio image. 

329: 

330: Since the galaxies are fainter with respect to the sky in the bluer bandpass, 

331: $S_B$ was determined from the outer regions of the $B$ images, along the direction 

332: where the profile declines most steeply. The sky brightness in $I$ was

333: then obtained from $S_I=S_BR/1.025$. Note that in the regions where $S_B$ was measured,

334: the galaxy contribution is at least a factor of 20 less than that of the 

335: sky. We further restricted the final surface brightness profiles to be no 

336: more than 2.5 mag fainter than the estimated sky to guard against 

337: an artificial drop in the profile due to background contamination by galaxy light.

338: This procedure was used for all galaxies except NGC~2832, which extends well 

339: beyond the WFPC2 field even in the $B$ band. In this case, the estimate of 

340: $S_B$ would be badly biased so we fixed the $B$-band sky value by matching 

341: our photometry to the $B$-band profile of Peletier et~al. (1990).

342: The main advantage of this sky estimation method is that it guarantees

343: \textit{a priori} that the measured sky color will be close to its actual value. 

344: 

345: Surface brightness measurements for the four galaxies are presented in

346: Table~\ref{tab:sb_all}, along with the results of our isophotal analysis.

347: Surface brightness profiles are shown in the leftmost panels of 

348: Figures~\ref{fig:n541sb}--\ref{fig:n7768sb}. Profiles 

349: from the literature are shown for comparison. We stress that, in the case of 

350: NGC~2832, the agreement at faint levels is forced upon our photometry for the

351: purpose of sky determination. For the remaining galaxies, the profiles are 

352: fully independent from those in the literature. In each case, the agreement is 

353: good except for the outer parts of NGC~541, where the profile of de Juan, 

354: Colina, \& P\'erez-Fournon (1994) turns downward compared to ours. We speculate 

355: that this downturn might be a consequence of their overestimating the 

356: background level: since our sky estimates are taken directly from the WFPC2 

357: images, they are unlikely to be underestimated.

358: 

359: Radial profiles of ellipticity, major-axis position angle and the 

360: $B_4$ parameter\footnote{$B_4$ indicates ``boxy'' isophotes if negative

361: and ``disky'' ones if positive (Jedrzejewski 1987).}

362: are shown in the right panels of Figures~\ref{fig:n541sb}--\ref{fig:n7768sb}.

363: As is common among BCGs, the ellipticities of NGC~541, NGC~4839 and NGC~7768 tend to 

364: increase with galactocentric radius ($e.g.$, Porter et~al. 1991) while

365: their major-axis position angles tend to align with those of the 

366: surrounding clusters ($e.g.$, Plionis 1994; West 1994; Kim et~al. 2002).

367: The ellipticity of NGC~2832 also increases with galactocentric radius,

368: but in this case, the galaxy's major-axis at large 

369: radii is oriented almost perpendicularly to the surrounding cluster.

370: Note that the profiles of NGC~541 and NGC~7768 flatten abruptly

371: at small radii ($r\lae 1''$). As Figure~\ref{fig:nuc} clearly shows,

372: the flattening in both case is due to the presence of compact dust disks in 

373: their nuclei. Tran et~al. (2001) find such compact disks in $\sim$ 18\% 

374: of the objects in their WFPC2 survey of early-type galaxies. It

375: is curious that two of the four cD galaxies in our sample contain

376: such disks.

377: 

378: 

379: 

380: \subsubsection{NGC~541: Comparison with VLT ground based photometry}

381: \label{sec:vlthst}

382: 

383: As mentioned in \S \ref{sec:intro}, the cD classification requires the 

384: presence of an envelope that departs from an $r^{1/4}$-law at low 

385: surface brightness. Our {\sl HST} profile for NGC~541 shows such an envelope 

386: starting at $r_b \sim 10^{\prime\prime}$, but we note that this galaxy 

387: has in the past been classified as both cD (Bird 1994) and D (Dressler 1980). 

388: To better characterize the surface brightness profile at large radii,

389: we obtained $B$ and $I$ images of NGC~541 with FORS1

390: on the VLT on 12 December, 2001 (see Figure~\ref{fig:n541vlt}).

391: Exposure times were $180$ and $20$ seconds in $I$, and $420$ and 

392: $60$ seconds in $B$. The short exposures were used to replace those pixels close

393: to the galaxy center that were saturated on the long exposures. The 

394: FWHM of isolated stars on the images was measured to be 

395: $\sim 1.1^{\prime\prime}$ in $B$ and $\sim 1.4^{\prime\prime}$ in $I$. 

396: The ground-based data, which have much greater areal coverage

397: than the {\sl HST} data and thus offer a more

398: direct means of measuring the local background level,

399: were reduced using standard IRAF routines and surface photometry

400: was performed with the task ELLIPSE. Because the observations were taken in 

401: non-photometric conditions, the {\sl HST} photometry was used to set the 

402: photometric zeropoints by matching the profiles in the range

403: $4^{\prime\prime} \lae r \lae10^{\prime\prime}$. 

404: 

405: The {\sl HST} and VLT profiles are compared in Figure~\ref{fig:vlthst}. An

406: envelope is clearly seen in the ground-based profile, confirming the

407: classification of NGC~541 as a cD galaxy. There is generally good agreement

408: between the two datasets, except at the faintest

409: levels where the {\sl HST} profile shows a steeper decline.

410: The increase in ellipticity for $r \gae r_b$ 

411: that was suggested by the {\it HST} data in Figure~\ref{fig:n541sb} is

412: readily apparent in the VLT data. It is also apparent that, in the transition

413: region between the PC and WF chips (typically around $R \sim 25^{\prime\prime}$),

414: the isophotal parameters derived from the {\it HST} data are somewhat less 

415: reliable because of the limited and varying areal coverage in this region.

416: 

417: 

418: As the ground-based surface brightness profile becomes shallower at large 

419: radii, $B_4$ increases dramatically. This behavior can be understood by

420: inspecting Figure~\ref{fig:n541vlt}. Beyond $r \sim 1^{\prime}$,

421: there is significant contamination by close companions, both to

422: the northeast and southwest. In fact, the various profiles overlap, 

423: producing a rather linear structure that runs diagonally through the 

424: field. As a result, the isophotes of NGC~541 have elongated ends that are 

425: aligned with this feature. This behavior, which is manifested as an increase in the

426: $B_4$ parameter for the outermost isophotes, is unlikely to be

427: is an artifact the sky estimation, since the slope of the surface brightness

428: profile changes rather abruptly, and setting the sky to obvious overestimates

429: does not make the increase in $B_4$ disappear. Given the presence

430: of significant structure in the background light, what we are seeing is

431: probably a consequence of our using a single value to characterize a

432: varying background in the vicinity of NGC~541. The surface brightness 

433: profiles shown in Figure~\ref{fig:vlthst} should therefore be treated

434: with some caution beyond $r \sim 1^{\prime}$.

435: 

436: \subsection{Point Sources: Detection, Classification and Photometry}

437: \label{sec:point}

438: 

439: GCs at the distances of

440: our program galaxies appear as unresolved point sources, even in the PC frames,

441: so their analysis is readily amenable to PSF-fitting photometry.

442: The images were first corrected for geometric distortion (Holtzman et al. 1995),

443: and detection frames were created by applying a ring median filter (Secker 1995)

444: with a radius of five pixels for the PC and four pixels for the WF frames in order

445: to eliminate the underlying galaxy light and to detect those sources

446: with scale-lengths smaller than the filter radius.

447: Detections were performed independently in both filters using SExtractor 

448: (Bertin \& Arnouts 1996) after setting the detection

449: threshold to three connected pixels with counts $2 \sigma$ above the local 

450: background in the detection image (which was convolved with a gaussian filter).

451: For some of our frames, there was an insufficient number of suitable stars

452: to build an PSF directly, so we created empirical PSFs from

453: archival observations and used these PSFs in the analysis of our program 

454: images.\footnote{The F814W and F450W PSF were constructed from images of the 

455: Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (GO6701), and Andromeda VI (GO8272), respectively.} 

456: Approximately one hundred stars per filter and chip were used to construct quadratically

457: varying PSFs with radii of ten pixels for the PC and five pixels for the WF chips. 

458: Using these PSFs, photometry was performed with DAOPHOT II (Stetson 1987; 1993), 

459: and the object lists in both the F814W and F450W filters were matched. Only 

460: those sources detected in both filters were retained.

461: 

462: Corrections for charge transfer efficiency were carried out using the prescriptions 

463: of Dolphin (2000), and standard {\sl HST} magnitudes were measured using the 

464: zeropoints given in Holtzman et~al. (1995).  The conversion to Johnson 

465: $B$ and $I$ was done using the following transformations (J. Holtzman, 

466: private communication), where $(B-I)_{1.3}\equiv (B-I)-1.3$,

467: 

468: \begin{widetext}

469: \begin{eqnarray*}

470: I = \left\{ \begin{array}{c} 

471: 		m_{F814W}-0.025(B-I)_{1.3}-0.009(B-I)_{1.3}^2-0.021 \,\,\,\, \mbox{ if } \,\,\,\, (B-I)_{1.3}<0  \\

472: 	  	m_{F814W}-0.012(B-I)_{1.3}-0.003(B-I)_{1.3}^2-0.021 \,\,\,\, \mbox{ if } \,\,\,\, (B-I)_{1.3}>0

473: 	    \end{array} \right. \\

474: B=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}

475: 	m_{F450W}+0.087(B-I)_{1.3}-0.008(B-I)_{1.3}^2+0.126 \,\,\,\, \mbox{ if } \,\,\,\,  (B-I)_{1.3}<0\\

476: 	m_{F450W}+0.193(B-I)_{1.3}-0.047(B-I)_{1.3}^2+0.126 \,\,\,\, \mbox{ if } \,\,\,\, (B-I)_{1.3}>0

477: 	\end{array} \right.

478: \end{eqnarray*}

479: \end{widetext}

480: 

481: A reddening correction was applied using the values of $E(B-V)$ obtained from the 

482: DIRBE maps of Schlegel, Finkbeiner \& Davis (1998) and the extinction curve 

483: of Cardelli, Clayton \& Mathis (1989). Additionally, a k-correction was applied to the

484: colors as described in \S\ref{sec:kcorr}. Since at this stage the candidate lists 

485: still contain significant contamination from compact background galaxies and foreground 

486: stars, additional selection criteria were imposed to obtain ``cleaned" lists of GCs. 

487: Specifically, we discarded objects whose DAOPHOT $\chi$ 

488: statistic\footnote{The DAOPHOT $\chi$ is a robust estimate of the ratio of 

489: the observed to expected

490: scatter about the model profile (Stetson \& Harris 1988).}

491: exceeded $\chi = 2$ in both $B$ and $I$, and 

492: whose SHARP parameters\footnote{The DAOPHOT SHARP parameter is an 

493: image radius index which is greater than zero if 

494: the object is more extended than the expected stellar profile and less than zero when the

495: detection appears sharper. The expected value for a point source is 

496: zero (Stetson \& Harris 1988).}

497: fell outside the range $-0.35 \lae$ SHARP $\lae 0.35$. We also discarded

498: objects with magnitudes more than $3\sigma$ brighter than the peak of the 

499: GC luminosity function (GCLF) in either $B$ or I, where $\sigma \sim 1.4$ mag 

500: is the typical dispersion of the GCLF (Harris 2001).  In doing so, we adopted

501: $M_B = -6.73$ and $M_I = -8.39$ mag for the GCLF ``turnover" magnitudes, 

502: displaced to a distance obtained from the mean cluster redshift using 

503: $H_0 = 72$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (Freedman et~al. 2001).

504: 

505: Artificial star tests were performed to calculate the completeness function and to assess

506: the extent to which our culling procedures would reject bonafide GCs. A total of 10,000 

507: stars were added to each chip, 50 stars each time so as not to alter significantly the crowding 

508: characteristics of our frames. Artificial stars had $B$ magnitudes in the range

509: $24 \lae B \lae 27$ mag and $B-I$ was randomly assigned a value assuming the color distribution

510: is a Gaussian with the observed mean and dispersion for each galaxy.

511: The artificial frames were then subjected to 

512: the same reduction procedure as the real data. Based on these tests, we conclude

513: that the above selection criteria reject $\lesssim 3\%$ of the artificial stars. 

514: Photometry for GC candidates in our four galaxies that have photometric

515: uncertainties less than $0.3$ mag in both $B$ and $I$ is presented in

516: Tables~\ref{tab:n541_gcphot}~--~\ref{tab:n7768_gcphot}.

517: 

518: \subsection{k-corrections}

519: \label{sec:kcorr}

520: 

521: Our program galaxies have redshifts in the range $0.018 \lae z \lae 0.027$. As we 

522: now show, redshift effects on the observed magnitudes and 

523: colors become significant at these distances. Since these effects depend rather strongly on

524: the object spectrum, we derive below k-corrections for both the

525: GCs and the host galaxies. In doing so, we make the assumption that the

526: GCs are old objects, meaning that they are roughly coeval with GCs in the

527: Milky Way. This assumption is supported by most observations of GCs

528: belonging to luminous early-type galaxies in cluster environments (see 

529: Jord\'an et~al. 2002 and references therein). Their broadband colors

530: are then determined mainly by metallicity, and not by age (Worthey 1994).

531: 

532: The k-correction is defined as

533: $$K(\lambda) = 2.5\log (1+z) + 2.5\log \biggl [ \frac{\int_0^{\infty}E(\lambda,t_0)S(\lambda)\,d\lambda}{\int_0^{\infty}

534: E(\frac{\lambda}{(1+z)},t_0)S(\lambda)\,d\lambda} \biggr ] \eqno{(4)}$$

535: where, following the notation of Poggianti (1997), $E(\lambda,t_0)$ is the luminosity

536: measured at wavelength $\lambda$ at the present time $t_0$ in the source rest frame,

537: and $S(\lambda)$ is the filter transmission curve.

538: In calculating k-corrections for the GCs, we used four template GC spectra, based

539: on observations of Galactic GCs, having 

540: different metallicities and different levels of ultraviolet emission\footnote{The results for 

541: cluster types with different ultraviolet behavior are very similar so the corrections were 

542: averaged.} (Bonatto, Bica \& Alloin 1995).  Specifically, we used their types

543: G2b/r, G3b/r, G4b/r, G5, which have respective

544: mean metallicities of [Fe/H] $=-0.4,-1.0,-1.5,-1.9$~dex.

545: To calculate the correction needed for solar-metallicity GCs, and for the galaxies

546: themselves, we used the elliptical template of Kinney et~al. (1996), which is based 

547: on spectroscopy of NGC~1399, NGC~1404, NGC~6868 and NGC~7196. The resulting k-corrections 

548: are presented in Table~\ref{tab:kcorr}.

549: 

550: Figure~\ref{fig:kcorr} shows k-corrections, $K(B-I)_0$, plotted as a function

551: of rest frame $(B-I)_0$. The upper and lower sequences show the corrections

552: for NGC~541 and NGC~7768, the galaxies with the lowest and highest redshifts in

553: our sample.

554: It is clear that the variation with $(B-I)_0$ is significant and must be accounted for.

555: We take the corrected colors to be linearly related to the observed $(B-I)_{\rm 0}$ by

556: $$(B-I)_{\rm 0,k} \equiv (B-I)_{\rm 0} - K(B-I)_{\rm 0} = C_K(B-I)_{\rm 0} + D_K \eqno{(5)}$$

557: where the constants are given in Table~\ref{tab:lincons}.

558: 

559: In principle, we might also wish to correct the observed colors for evolutionary effects.

560: However, any correction for the fading stellar populations 

561: in the color of these objects will be small compared to the k-correction. For instance,

562: using the populations synthesis models of Maraston (1998),

563: we find that the expected evolution in $(B-I)_0$ between $13$ and $14$ Gyr is 

564: ${\delta}(B-I)_0 < 0.03$ mag for all metallicities. As the lookback time to our targets is

565: $\lesssim 0.3$ Gyr, the evolution in color is expected to be $\delta(B-I)\lesssim 0.01$ mag

566: --- significantly

567: smaller than the k-correction on the color. Note that the evolutionary effects 

568: on the observed magnitudes are, in general, \textit{not} negligible compared to the 

569: k-corrections for our targets. However, there is a partial cancellation in the corrections, 

570: as both $B$ and $I$ fade with age (albeit at different rates). For 

571: the present work, we have applied a k-correction to just the colors, since

572: we use the magnitudes only when calculating the specific frequencies in \S\ref{sec:sn}, and then 

573: only the $I$ band where the k-correction and evolutionary correction go in opposite 

574: directions. Thus, our results for the GC specific frequencies of these galaxies are 

575: quite insensitive to the correction ($i.e.,$ the $I$-band magnitudes vary by 

576: $\lesssim 0.03$ over the redshift range of our program objects).

577: 

578: \section{Analysis}

579: 

580: \subsection{Color Magnitude Diagrams and Color Distributions}

581: 

582: A remarkable finding from the past decade of GC research is that a majority of 

583: giant elliptical galaxies have GC systems with bimodal color distribution 

584: functions ($e.g.$, Gebhardt \& Kissler-Patig 1999; Larsen et~al. 2001). Because 

585: the colors of old stellar populations are more sensitive to metallicity than 

586: age, this bimodality implies the presence of two subpopulations of 

587: differing metallicity. 

588: In this section, we examine the color distributions of the GC systems

589: associated with our cD galaxies, thus probing the GC chemical enrichment

590: histories of early-type galaxies in their most extreme manifestation

591: of luminosity and size.

592: 

593: Figure~\ref{fig:cmd} presents color magnitude diagrams for the four GC systems.

594: All objects classified as unresolved by our culling procedure 

595: are plotted in this figure. Magnitudes and colors have been corrected for 

596: reddening and extinction, and k-corrections have been applied to the observed colors.

597: It is apparent that none of the GC systems show obvious sequences arising from 

598: the presence of two subpopulations. This impression is confirmed in 

599: Figure~\ref{fig:hists}, where we plot color distributions for all objects 

600: with $\sigma({B-I}) \leq 0.3$ mag. The solid line is a kernel 

601: density estimate of the color distribution (Silverman 1986) obtained with 

602: a normal kernel. The adopted smoothing parameter $h$ was chosen using 

603: the prescription of Silverman (1986) which is well suited to a wide range in

604: densities and is trivial to evaluate: $h=0.9An^{-1/5}$ 

605: where $A=min(\mbox{standard deviation},\mbox{interquartile range}/1.34)$. 

606: The dashed curves show $90\%$ confidence bands obtained with a 

607: smoothed bootstrap procedure (Silverman 1986).

608:  

609: We have computed a variety of statistical indices for each of the color distributions 

610: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:hists}, including biweight estimates of location, $C_{BI}$,

611: and scale, $S_{BI}$, Finch's (1977) asymetry index, $AI$, (akin to skewness) and 

612: Hoaglin, Mosteller \& Tukey (1983) tail index, $TI$, (akin to kurtosis).\footnote{For

613: a description of the asymetry and tail indices and some of their properties, see Bird 

614: and Beers (1993). See Beers, Flynn \& Gebhardt (1990) for a description of the 

615: biweight estimators.} The results 

616: are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:stats}, where the upper and lower limits on each 

617: index represent $68\%$ confidence bands obtained with a bootstrap procedure.

618: To within the uncertainties, the width of the distributions

619: is the same for all galaxies, and it

620: is clear that none of the distributions show statisitically significant 

621: skewness or extended tails beyond what would be expected from a parent Gaussian

622: distribution. Similarly, the DIP test (see Gebhardt \& Kissler-Patig 1999) accepts 

623: the hypothesis of unimodality for each of the distributions shown in 

624: Figure~\ref{fig:hists}. We caution, however, that although bimodality is formally 

625: rejected in each case, the photometric errors, 

626: $\sigma{(B-I)} \sim 0.2$ mag, are sufficiently large that intrinsic

627: bimodality (with an expected separation between the modes of 0.3$-$0.4 mag in

628: $B-I$; $e.g.$, Forbes et~al. 1998) would be difficult to detect given 

629: the current samples.

630: 

631: \subsection{Color Profiles and Offsets}

632: 

633: Mean colors for our program galaxies and their GC systems are given in 

634: Table~\ref{tab:colorinfo}, which summarizes various observed and derived photometric data.

635: From left to right, this table gives the galaxy name, adopted reddening, average colors

636: for the galaxy and GCs, the total $V$-band magnitude from RC3, the galaxy redshift, 

637: its total $V$-band absolute magnitude, and approximate luminosity in units of $L^*$.

638: In Figure~\ref{fig:bivsr}, we plot the colors of

639: the GC candidates as a function of galactocentric distance for each of the four galaxies. 

640: The solid line in each panel is the best-fit linear relation for GCs with 

641: $\sigma({B-I}) \leq0.25$ mag. The dashed-lines are profiles of the galaxy light measured

642: from our {\sl HST} images. In all four cases, as is typical for GC systems, there is a 

643: negative color gradient in the sense that the GC system becomes bluer with increasing 

644: galactocentric distance ($e.g.$, Strom et~al. 1981).

645: The GC color gradients parallel those of the underlying galaxies, with mean offsets

646: ranging from 0.33~mag for NGC~541 to 0.50~mag for NGC~7768. If we make the somewhat

647: daring assumption that the composite stellar populations of the galaxies follow the 

648: same color-metallicity relation as the globulars (Barmby et~al. 2000), then these 

649: differences correspond to metallicity offsets in the range 

650: $0.8 \lae {\Delta}{\rm [Fe/H]} \lae 1.3$~dex.

651: 

652: Indeed, the color/metallicity offset apparent in Figure~\ref{fig:bivsr} is a ubiquitous feature 

653: that is observed in galaxies ranging from faint, low-surface dSph/dE galaxies to the 

654: brightest and most massive early-type galaxies.  The left panel of 

655: Figure~\ref{fig:metoffset} shows mean GC and stellar metallicity plotted as a function

656: of host galaxy magnitude for a large sample of early-type galaxies. Note that this 

657: plot is an updated version of Figure~1 of C\^ot\'e et~al. (2000), to which we have 

658: added elliptical galaxies from the sample

659: from Kundu \& Whitmore (2001) and our four cD galaxies (shown as the circled

660: points). Improved stellar metallicity determinations for several dwarf galaxies have 

661: been taken from Shetrone, C\^ot\'e \& Sargent (2001) and Tolstoy et~al. (2003).

662: For those galaxies from the survey of Kundu \& Whitmore (2001), GC metallicities 

663: were calculated by combining their $(V-I)$ colors with the $(V-I)$-metallicity relation

664: of Barmby et~al. (2000). Metallicities for the galaxies themselves come

665: from the integrated-light spectroscopy of Trager et~al. (2000) when available; for

666: those galaxies lacking spectroscopic data, we estimated crude metallicities

667: by combining their $(B-V)$ colors from RC3 (de Vaucouleurs et~al. 1995)

668: with the $(B-V)$-metallicity relation of Barmby et~al. (2000).

669: 

670: It is clear from the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:metoffset} that the GCs and stars obey 

671: reasonably tight relations that run roughly parallel to each other. The right panel

672: of this figure shows, for those galaxies that have metallicity determinations for both 

673: the stars and the GC systems, the offset between the two components. 

674: Remarkably, this offset is nearly constant over the whole range of galaxy magnitude.

675: An $F$-test indicates that the offset appears to be constant over the full

676: range in galaxy magnitude, with a weighted mean value of $\Delta$[Fe/H]$=0.79\pm0.04$~dex.

677: We conclude that the metallicity offset between stars and GCs in these

678: luminous cD galaxies is indistinguishable from that observed in

679: normal ellipticals. This metallicity offset presents 

680: another apparently ``universal" property of GC systems --- analogous to the 

681: near-Gaussian nature of the GC luminosity function (Harris 2001) and the 

682: apparently constant efficiency of GC formation (Blakeslee et~al. 1997; McLaughlin 1999a) --- 

683: that must be explained by any viable model of GC formation.

684: 

685: \subsection{Specific Frequencies}

686: \label{sec:sn}

687: 

688: The GC specific frequency, $S_N=N_{\rm GC}10^{0.4(M_V+15)}$, is a convenient measure of 

689: GC formation efficiency relative to field stars in the underlying galaxy (Harris \& 

690: van den Bergh 1981; cf. McLaughlin 1999a). Possible dependencies of $S_N$ on 

691: morphological types have played an important role in the debate over 

692: how, and when, early-type galaxies form (Schweizer 1987; Ashman \& Zepf 1992;

693: van den Bergh 1995).

694: Since the first ``high-$S_N$" giant galaxies to

695: be identified (M87, NGC~1399, NGC~3311) were all cDs, it was believed

696: that the cD environment was somehow conducive to the efficient formation

697: of GCs relative to field stars (Harris 1988). However, with the acquisition of 

698: more and better data,

699: it became apparent that not all cD galaxies had high specific frequencies

700: ($e.g.$, Harris, Pritchet \& McClure 1995), leading West et~al. (1995) to propose a

701: phenomenological model in which the GC specific frequency of BCGs correlates

702: with the mass of the surrounding galaxy cluster. This suggestion was later

703: confirmed observationally as a correlation between specific frequency and 

704: cluster velocity dispersion or X-ray temperature (Blakeslee, Tonry \& Metzger 

705: 1997; Blakeslee 1999). In other words, it appears that the properties of the 

706: surrounding galaxy cluster are connected to both the cD envelope {\sl and} the 

707: overall number of GCs, and that the mere presence of an envelope is not enough 

708: to guarantee a high GC specific frequency.

709: 

710: To measure GC specific frequencies for our program galaxies, we must first

711: estimate the sizes of their GC systems using the bright end of the GCLF, which we

712: observe directly. For data such as ours, which do not reach the turnover,

713: any attempt to fit simultaneously for the number of GCs, 

714: the turnover magnitude, and the dispersion of the GCLF 

715: would be confounded by large and highly correlated errors

716: in the derived parameters (Hanes \& Whittaker 1987; Secker \& Harris 1993).

717: We therefore proceed by fixing the dispersion of the GCLF at $\sigma = 1.4$~mag and 

718: adopting $M_{\rm TO} = -7.33$~mag for the $V$-band absolute magnitude 

719: its turnover (Harris 2001).

720: 

721: To obtain the completeness-corrected luminosity function, we divide our 

722: GC sample into three radial regions: 

723: $r\leq 20'',\, 20''<r\leq 50''$ and $r>50''$ .

724: We determine the completeness function, $f(m)$, in each radial bin by fitting the function 

725: $$f(m)=\frac{1}{2}\left[ 1-\frac{\alpha (m-m_{lim})}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2(m-m_{lim})^2}} \right] \eqno{(6)}$$

726: to the results of our artificial star tests, where $m_{lim}$ is the magnitude 

727: at which $f=0.5$ (Fleming et~al. 1995). These functions were then used to correct 

728: the luminosity functions in each bin up to a magnitude obtained by averaging $m_{lim}$ 

729: for the three regions.  The three LFs were then added to find the completeness 

730: corrected LF for the full field. 

731: 

732: We fit for $N_{\rm GC}$ in a GCLF of the form 

733: $$N(m) = N_{\rm GC}(2\pi\sigma^2)^{-1/2}\exp[-(m-m_{\rm TO})^2/(2\sigma^2)] \eqno{(7)}$$

734: where $m_{\rm TO} = (m-M) + M_{\rm TO}$. Here $M_{\rm TO}$ is absolute magnitude

735: of the GCLF turnover and $(m-M)$ is the 

736: distance modulus obtained from the observed redshift (see

737: Table~\ref{tab:prop_clus}) and $H_0 = 72\pm8$ km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$ (Freedman et~al. 2001),

738: which is consistent with the value obtained from WMAP (Spergel et~al. 2003). 

739: We assume the uncertainty in the turnover magnitude is due 

740: to the uncertainty of $0.05$ quoted in Harris (2001) plus the 

741: joint uncertainties arising from the distance 

742: determination (as a result of deviations from a pure Hubble flow) and

743: the uncertainty in the Hubble constant itself. 

744: The combined error in the turnover magnitude due to the latter effects is 

745: $$\sigma^2_{m}=(5/ln(10))^2(\sigma_{cz}/cz)^2+(5/H_0ln(10))^2\sigma^2_{H_0} \eqno{(8)}$$ 

746: where we have adopted a constant value of $\sigma_{cz} = 300$ km s$^{-1}$ for the 

747: $rms$ cluster peculiar velocity (Bahcall \& Oh 1996). Clearly, these uncertainties 

748: should be viewed as lower limits since background contamination, photometric errors 

749: for the GCs, and model assumptions have not been included.

750: 

751: We take $N_{\rm GC}$ in equation (7) as our best estimate for the

752: total number of GCs within our field. Since this is a {\it metric}

753: quantity, it is denoted as $N_{\rm GC}^{\rm met}$ hereafter. For each

754: galaxy, $S_N^{\rm met}$ is measured by calculating the integrated

755: magnitude of the underlying galaxy within our WFPC2 field with the aid

756: of the $B$- and $I$-band galaxy models presented in \S~\ref{sec:sb}. To convert

757: these $B$- and $I$-band magnitudes into the $V$ bandpass, we assume typical colors

758: for ellipticals as given in Fukugita et~al (1995): $\langle B-V\rangle = 0.96$ mag and

759: $\langle V-I\rangle = 1.31$ mag.

760: Table~\ref{tab:snval} summarizes the GC specific frequency measurements for our

761: cD galaxies. From left to right, this table records the galaxy name, 

762: absolute magnitude, total number of globular clusters, 

763: and GC specific frequency. Once again, these are 

764: all {\it metric} quantities. 

765: 

766: It is interesting to note that 

767: none of these galaxies show high specific frequencies,

768: their values being typical for ellipticals and even somewhat low for NGC~7768. 

769: Blakeslee et~al. (1997) measured specific frequencies for NGC~2832, NGC~4839

770: and NGC~7768 as part of their survey of BCGs. Within the errors, our results are consistent 

771: with theirs for all three objects. NGC~7768 was also studied by Harris, Pritchet \& McClure (1995), 

772: who obtained $S_N=3\pm2$. Their result scales with their assumed value of $S_N = 15$ 

773: for M87. In light of more recent measurements the GCLF parameters in M87 by Whitmore et~al. (1995),

774: we adopt $S_N = 11$ for this galaxy (using the correction factor presented in equation 17 of

775: McLaughlin, Harris \& Hanes 1994). The Harris et~al. (1995) measurement

776: for NGC~7768 then falls to $S_N \sim 2.3$. This is in good agreement with 

777: our determination of $S_N = 2.2 \pm 0.8$. Finally, Mar\'{\i}n-Franch \& Aparicio (2002)

778: find $S_N=7.0\pm1.9$ for NGC~4839 --- slightly higher than, but still 

779: consistent with, our measurement of $S_N=5.6\pm1.9$.

780: This is the first determination of $S_N$ for NGC~541 and its value --- like those

781: of the two other galaxies for which X-ray luminosities of the host cluster are

782: available (see Table~\ref{tab:prop_clus}) --- is consistent with that expected from the cluster's 

783: X-ray temperature and the $S_N$-$L_X$ correlation presented by Blakeslee et~al. (1997).

784: 

785: \section{Constraints on the Merger Histories of cD Galaxies}

786: 

787: As discussed in \S\ref{sec:intro}, the physical properties of cD galaxies, coupled

788: with their unique locations near the dynamical centers of rich galaxy clusters, 

789: suggest that some aspects of their formation and/or evolutionary histories 

790: differ from those of normal elliptical galaxies. A wide range of evolutionary 

791: phenomena has been invoked to explain their properties, including

792: cannibalism, tidal stripping, and star formation in coolings flows. Clearly, a 

793: resolution of the debate concerning which, if any, of these processes has played a 

794: role in the formation of cD galaxies would benefit from a knowledge of their

795: merger histories. 

796: 

797: \subsection{Protogalactic Mass/Luminosity Spectra From Globular Cluster Metallicity Distributions}

798: \label{sec:pmf}

799: 

800: A method of using GC metallicity distributions to determine protogalactic mass 

801: spectra has been described by C\^ot\'e et~al. (1998; 2000; 2002). A full description 

802: of the method is presented in these papers, so here we simply note its basic 

803: assumptions and limitations. In brief, the method assumes that the protogalactic 

804: luminosity (and mass) spectrum can be 

805: approximated by a Schechter function (Schechter 1976), and that the present-day GC 

806: specific frequency of any surviving protogalactic ``fragments" is $S_N \approx 4$.

807: It is further assumed the galaxy under consideration has been assembled hierarchically,

808: in a primarily dissipationless manner, so that no GCs are formed during mergers

809: and interactions. In other words, star and GC formation during mergers 

810: are ignored entirely in 

811: this approach. The metallicities of individual GCs are instead taken to reflect

812: differences in the depths of the gravitational potential wells in which they 

813: formed. Indeed, the tight empirical relation between mean GC metallicity and total 

814: galaxy magnitude, such as that shown in Figure~\ref{fig:metoffset}, is 

815: {\it prima facie} evidence for the importance of local environment in the chemical 

816: enrichment of GC systems. As a consequence, we adopt a GC metallicity-host galaxy 

817: luminosity relation that is based on nearby dwarf galaxies and the metal-rich

818: (bulge) GC populations of M31 and the Milky Way (C\^ot\'e et~al. 2002).

819: 

820: The implementation of the model proceeds as follows. Using the above model inputs, simulated

821: GC metallicity distributions are generated over a grid in two parameters

822: chosen to describe the mass spectrum\footnote{In converting to masses, we assume

823: a constant mass-to-light ratio of $\Upsilon_V = 5$ for all protogalactic fragments.} 

824: of protogalactic fragments from which the galaxy was assembled: (1) the slope,

825: $\alpha$, of the Schechter function from which the simulated protogalactic fragments 

826: were drawn; and (2) the ratio of the mass of largest protogalactic fragment, 

827: ${\cal M}^1$, to the final mass, ${\cal M}_{\it f}$ of the assembled galaxy:

828: $$\zeta= {\cal M}^1/{\cal M}_{\it f}. \eqno{(9)}$$

829: For each simulated GC system, we extract at random an identical

830: number of GCs as contained in the actual sample and

831: add the appropriate amount of measurement error to the simulated colors.

832: The transformation between color and metallicity is performed using the 

833: transformations of Barmby et~al. (2000). We restrict the sample of GCs 

834: to lie on the range 1.23 $\le (B-I)_{\rm 0,k} \le$ 2.49~mag, which is equivalent 

835: to $-2.5 \le$~[Fe/H]~$\le1.0$~dex. This generous range is expected to include the 

836: vast majority of bona fide GCs in these galaxies (see, $e.g.$, 

837: Beasley et~al. 2000; Cohen, Blakeslee \& C\^ot\'e 2003).

838:  

839: For each simulated GC system, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test is performed to test 

840: the hypothesis that the simulated and observed metallicity distributions have 

841: been drawn from the same parent distribution.

842: Simulations are carried out $100$ times at each point in the $\alpha$--$\zeta$ plane,

843: giving a grand total of 60,000 simulations over the full grid. At each grid

844: element, the average KS probability is recorded. The resulting probability surface,

845: shown in Figures~\ref{fig:ks541},~\ref{fig:ks2832},~\ref{fig:ks4839} and

846: \ref{fig:ks7768}, gives the likelihood that the observed GC color/metallicity distributions 

847: can be reproduced with a protogalactic spectrum characterized by that 

848: $\alpha$--$\zeta$ pair. The four crosses in each figure mark representative simulations

849: for each galaxy that have a better than $99\%$ probability of being drawn from the same 

850: distribution as the observed GC metallicity distribution function. 

851: The upper panels of Figures~\ref{fig:mdf541},~\ref{fig:mdf2832},~\ref{fig:mdf4839} and

852: \ref{fig:mdf7768} show comparisons of the observed GC 

853: metallicity distribution functions with the results from these four simulations;

854: the lower panels of these figures show the corresponding protogalactic mass 

855: spectra.

856: 

857: The key result from these simulations 

858: is that the observed GC color/metallicity distributions seem to be

859: perfectly consistent with those expected if cD galaxies form through

860: the accretion of numerous galaxies and protogalactic fragments that

861: managed to form the bulk of the GCs before being integrated into the central galaxy.

862: At the same time, Figures~\ref{fig:ks541}--\ref{fig:mdf7768}

863: reveal that a wide variety of protogalactic mass spectra are

864: able to reproduce the observed metallicity distributions. For comparison,

865: C\^ot\'e et~al. (2002) carried out an analysis of the 28 early-type galaxies 

866: of Kundu \& Whitmore (2001) using the method described above, 

867: finding $\langle \zeta \rangle = 0.25\pm0.03$ (mean

868: error) and a rather steep slope of $\langle \alpha \rangle = -1.88\pm0.03$

869: (mean error). While these values are certainly consistent in all four cases

870: with those found here, Figures~\ref{fig:ks541}--\ref{fig:mdf7768}

871: show that, with the possible exception of NGC~4839, 

872: shallower slopes are also allowed. Aside from NGC~4839 (which we discuss in detail below),

873: the locus of most probable $\alpha$--$\zeta$ pairs for each galaxy tend to 

874: form an elongated ridge that stretches

875: from the lower-left corner of the plot ($i.e.,$ low $\zeta$ and shallow

876: slopes) to the middle-right region ($i.e.,$ intermediate $\zeta$ and steep

877: slopes). The weaker constraints on $\alpha$ and $\zeta$

878: compared to those found by C\^ot\'e et~al. (2002), are a direct

879: consequence of the fact that the GC metallicity

880: distributions for these cD galaxies are dominated by photometric

881: errors. With the current data, we are able to conclude that the GC 

882: metallicity distributions are consistent with the cDs

883: being assembled via mergers, accretion and tidal stripping, but we 

884: are unable to place firm constraints on the detailed shape of the mass 

885: spectra of the cannibalized objects (with the possible exception of 

886: NGC~4839; see below). We now turn out attention to the mechanism(s)

887: responsible for these putative mergers.

888: 

889: \subsection{Dynamical Friction and the Luminosity Function of Cannibalized Galaxies}

890: 

891: Note that above discussion refers implicitly to the {\it initial} luminosity

892: function of galaxies, protogalaxies and protogalactic ``fragments". Since 

893: our simulations treat mergers in a purely statistical manner, equal merger 

894: probabilities are assumed for all galaxies and protogalactic

895: fragments. This assumption is clearly an oversimplification: if 

896: mergers proceed through dynamical friction, the merger probability 

897: will be a function of mass ($e.g.$ Binney \& Tremaine 1987). In this section, 

898: we examine how dynamical friction is expected to modify the initial 

899: luminosity function. Our aim is

900: compare the luminosity function of cannibalized

901: galaxies predicted by dynamical friction arguments with that obtained in

902: our analysis of the GC metallicity distributions.  

903: 

904: At the centers of clusters where cD galaxies reside, the galaxy luminosity 

905: function will evolve with time because the rate of dynamical friction is mass

906: (and, hence, luminosity) dependent. If cannibalism as a result of dynamical 

907: friction is the primary mechanism by which cD galaxies evolve, then we would 

908: expect the luminosity function of cannibalized galaxies to be skewed toward

909: luminous galaxies. Note that, for our purposes, we are not concerned with 

910: the {\it rate} at which galaxies sink to the cluster center, but merely

911: with the final luminosity distribution of all galaxies cannibalized over 

912: the cluster lifetime.

913: 

914: We assume that the initial luminosity function is given by a Schecter function,

915: 

916: $$\phi_i(L) = n_{*}(L/L_{*})^{\alpha_i}\exp(-L/L_{*})L_{*}^{-1}, \eqno{(10)}$$

917: and that the joint luminosity and spatial density distribution of galaxies within the 

918: cluster, $n(r,L)$ 

919: is given by the product of $\phi_i(L)$ with a spatial distribution $\eta(r)$, such that 

920: $n(r,L)=\phi_i(L)\eta(r)$. A galaxy orbiting on a circular orbit in an isothermal 

921: potential reaches the cluster center after a time (Binney \& Tremaine 1987)

922: $$t_{f} = \frac{1.65 r_i^2\sigma}{GM \ln{\Lambda}}. \eqno{(11)}$$

923: Here $r_i$ is the initial distance of the galaxy, $\sigma$ is the cluster velocity

924: dispersion, and $\ln{\Lambda}$ is the standard Coulomb logarithm. Setting $t_{f}$ 

925: to the age of the cluster, $T_{clus}$, we can solve for the distance, $r_i(M)$, within 

926: which galaxies of mass $M$ will have spiraled to the center. Assuming a constant 

927: mass-to-light ratio, $\Upsilon$, we can also express this distance as a function of $L$,

928: 

929: $$r_i(L)= \biggl [ \frac{{\Upsilon}T_{clus}G\ln{\Lambda}}{\sigma}\frac{L}{1.65}\biggr ]^{0.5} \propto L^{0.5} \eqno{(12)}$$

930: 

931: For the host clusters of our cD galaxies, $r_i$ varies between $\sim$~13 and 

932: $\sim$~1300~kpc for galaxy masses in the range 10$^8$ to 10$^{12}$~$M_{\odot}$. 

933: The luminosity function of cannibalized galaxies will

934: be given by

935: 

936: $${\phi}_c(L)=4\pi \phi_i(L) \int_0^{r_i(L)}\eta(r)r^2\,dr. \eqno{(13)} \label{eq:phi}$$

937: 

938: The surface density profile of galaxies in the inner regions of clusters goes as

939: $\rho(r) \propto r^{-1}$ ($e.g.$, Beers \& Tonry 1986; 

940: Merritt \& Tremblay 1994; McLaughlin 1999b). For a spherical cluster, this

941: corresponds to a three-dimensional density distribution of 

942: $\eta(r) \propto r^{-2}$, which in turn implies

943: $${\phi}_c(L) \propto \phi_i(L)L^{0.5}. \eqno{(14)}$$

944: In other words, the slope of the luminosity function of cannibalized galaxies, 

945: $\alpha_c$, is related that of the initial luminosity function, $\alpha_i$, 

946: through the relation 

947: $$\alpha_c \simeq \alpha_i + 0.5. \eqno{(15)}$$

948: 

949: 

950: This expression provides a a crude connection between the expected luminosity 

951: function of cannibalized galaxies to

952: that of the surrounding cluster at the time of its formation

953: under the simplifying assumptions made. 

954: Note that except in the case of a very steep initial density distribution,

955: $\alpha_c \gae \alpha_i$ regardless of the exact value of $\alpha_c-\alpha_i$.

956:  

957: \subsection{Comparing the Luminosity Functions}

958: 

959: Is it plausible that these cD galaxies were

960: assembled mainly through dynamical friction? We may examine this 

961: possibility by assuming, for the time being, that the protogalactic luminosity 

962: functions found in \S\ref{sec:pmf} are the outcome of cannibalism

963: through dynamical friction, so that $\alpha \simeq \alpha_c$ and 

964: $\alpha_i = \alpha - 0.5$.

965: 

966: For NGC~541, NGC~2832 and NGC~7768, 

967: Figures~\ref{fig:ks541}-\ref{fig:mdf2832} and 

968: \ref{fig:ks7768}-\ref{fig:mdf7768} 

969: show that a rather wide range of protogalactic

970: luminosity functions are capable of reproducing the observed GC

971: metallicity distributions in these galaxies. 

972: Depending on the

973: precises values of $\zeta$, slopes in the range $-2 \lae \alpha \lae -0.75$

974: are capable of yielding simulated metallicity distributions that are in close 

975: agreement with those observed; the constraints on $\alpha$ are somewhat 

976: tighter in the case of NGC~4839, with $-2 \lae \alpha \lae -1.1$.

977: These values of $\alpha$ would require the host

978: clusters ($i.e.$, Abell 194, Abell 779 and Abell 2666) to have

979: initial luminosity functions with slopes in the range

980: $-2.5 \lae \alpha_i \lae -1.25$. For Abell~1656, the corresponding limits

981: are $-2.5 \lae \alpha_i \lae -1.65$.

982: Are such slopes feasible, or can they

983: be ruled out from observations of the present-day luminosity functions in 

984: these clusters? 

985: 

986: There is, to the best of our knowledge, no published luminosity

987: function for Abell~779, so we restrict ourselves to Abell~194, Abell~1656 and 

988: Abell~2666. 

989: Interestingly, there have been recent reports of steep 

990: luminosity functions in both Abell~194 and Abell~2666.

991: Trentham (1997) finds $\alpha_{\rm obs} > -1.6$ in Abell~194, while de 

992: Propris et~al. (1995) claim $\alpha_{\rm obs} \sim -2.2$ for Abell~2666. 

993: We caution, however, that in both cases, the measured luminosity 

994: functions are uncertain to the point being essentially unconstrained

995: ($e.g.$, Trentham quotes a best-fit value of

996: $\alpha_{\rm obs} = -2.2^{+\infty}_{-\infty}$ for Abell~194).

997: Firm conclusions on the viability of dynamical friction as the

998: main mechanism responsible for the formation of these

999: galaxies must await the measurement of improved GC metallicity

1000: distributions and, equally important, accurate luminosity functions

1001: for their host clusters.

1002: 

1003: Observational constraints on the luminosity function in 

1004: Abell~1656 are of much higher quality. Several comprehensive studies of 

1005: the luminosity function in this cluster which have yielded results that 

1006: are in good agreement:

1007: $\alpha_{\rm obs} = -1.42\pm0.05$ (Bernstein et~al. 1995),

1008: $\alpha_{\rm obs} = -1.41\pm0.05$ (Secker, Harris \& Plummer 1997),

1009: $\alpha_{\rm obs} = -1.33\pm0.06$ (Beijersbergen, Schaap \& van der Hulst 2002), and

1010: $\alpha_{\rm obs} = -1.31 \pm0.05$ (Mobasher et~al. 2003).

1011: Strictly speaking, these measurements refer to the {\it global} luminosity

1012: function of the Abell~1656 cluster

1013: and not the subcluster that hosts NGC~4839, but Mobasher et~al.

1014: (2003) find the luminosity function in the NGC~4839 subcluster to

1015: be indistinguishable from that of the cluster as a whole.

1016: The average of the above values, $\langle \alpha_{\rm obs} \rangle = -1.37$,

1017: falls outside the range of probable $\alpha_i$ values given above

1018: ($i.e.$, $-2.5 \lae \alpha_i \lae -1.65$).

1019: We tentatively conclude that the hypothesis that cD galaxies 

1020: were assembled mainly through mergers driven by dynamical friction

1021: seems inconsistent with the available data for NGC~4839 and

1022: Abell~1656, the galaxy/cluster pair in our sample with the highest

1023: quality GC metallicity distribution and luminosity function.

1024: Recall from \S\ref{sec:intro} that various dynamical evidence suggests

1025: that cD galaxies typically grow by only $\approx$ 1-2$~L^*$ as a result of 

1026: cannibalism through dynamical friction during the post-virialization regime

1027: ($e.g.$, Merritt 1985; Lauer 1985; Dubinski 1998).

1028: Since NGC~4839 has a luminosity of $\sim 7 L*$, this conclusion is in 

1029: agreement with the expectation from the dynamical evidence that

1030: dynamical friction alone can not account for the observed luminosity.

1031: 

1032: \section{Conclusions}

1033: 

1034: We have nearly doubled the number of cD galaxies with available color/metallicity distributions

1035: for their GC systems, thus probing the realm of early-type galaxies in their 

1036: most extreme manifestation of luminosity and size. Despite the undeniably special 

1037: nature of these galaxies, their GC systems seem remarkably normal in all the 

1038: properties we have explored: specific frequency, mean metallicity, and the 

1039: metallicity offset between the GCs and host galaxy stars. An analysis of the

1040: protogalactic mass spectra for these galaxies, while more model

1041: dependent, similarly reveals no obvious anomalies compared to normal ellipticals.

1042: 

1043: The GC specific frequencies of these cD galaxies fall within the expected 

1044: range given the known scaling relations between specific frequency and cluster X-ray 

1045: temperature and velocity dispersion. Our specific frequencies corroborate 

1046: previous measurements for three of our galaxies; the measured specific frequency

1047: for the remaining object, NGC~541, is consistent with expectations given the

1048: mass of Abell~194, the surrounding cluster. Thus, our findings are

1049: consistent with a picture in which the efficiency of GC formation scales with

1050: the total mass of the cluster itself, implying that the GC formation efficiency per unit

1051: total mass ($i.e.$, including dark matter) is universal (Blakeslee et~al. 1997; Blakeslee 1999).

1052: It would be interesting to measure density profiles for the

1053: X-ray emitting gas these clusters,

1054: to see if the total numbers of GCs in these galaxies are also consistent with a 

1055: constant efficiency of GC formation per {\it baryon} mass, as suggested by McLaughlin (1999a).

1056: In any event, it seems clear that the GC systems belonging to these cD galaxies trace 

1057: the cluster properties so that, as Blakeslee (1999) notes, it may be more 

1058: correct to view ``high-$S_N$" galaxies as being underluminous given

1059: their total masses, rather than ascribing to them an unusually high GC formation 

1060: efficiency. Possible explanations for this ``missing light'' problem include tidal

1061: heating of the gas as the galaxy cluster collapses (Blakeslee et~al. 1997), and

1062: starbust driven galactic winds (Harris, Harris \& McLaughlin 1998)

1063: which could be responsible for halting star formation in BCGs to an extent 

1064: that is controlled by the cluster's mass.

1065: 

1066: Our results suggest that, whatever mechanism is responsible for the formation of

1067: cD galaxies, perhaps making some of them appear underluminous compared to their

1068: host clusters in the process, {\it it seems to leave the GCs unscathed}. 

1069: Indeed, the metallicity offset between the CG system and the underlying

1070: galaxy is indistinguishable from that observed for other early-type galaxies, and

1071: thus presents us with another uniformity which must be

1072: tied in a fundamental way to their formation process. A plausible origin for this 

1073: offset may rely on the timing of GC formation. We find the mean metallicity

1074: of the gas out of which GCs formed to be roughly six times lower than that of 

1075: galaxy itself; if the GCs form before the bulk of the stars, then a metallicity 

1076: offset seems a natural, if not inevitable, outcome. This admittedly qualitative 

1077: scenario agrees with the idea that star formation was inhibited for some central

1078: galaxies but not their GC systems, as the GCs might have formed prior to the onset of 

1079: this as-yet-unidentified process.

1080: 

1081: Different models for the formation of cD galaxies differ mainly on the timescales over

1082: which the cD galaxies form. We have examined the possibility that cD galaxies have

1083: been assembled through the accretion of numerous galaxies and protogalactic fragments

1084: that managed to form their GCs prior to being captured and disrupted

1085: by the central galaxy. Our key finding in this regard is that such a process

1086: appears to be entirely consistent with the observed GC metallcity distributions 

1087: for these galaxies. Unfortunately, a wide variety of protogalactic mass spectra are

1088: able to reproduce the observed metallicity distributions given the rather

1089: rather poorly constrained metallicity distributions. 

1090: 

1091: What mechanism might be responsible for such mergers? In the case of NGC~4839,

1092: the cD in the southwest extension of Abell~1656 and the galaxy in our

1093: sample having the most reliable GC metallicity distribution, we find 

1094: the present-day luminosity function of Abell~1656 to be too shallow to be consistent

1095: with the assembly of the galaxy from dynamical friction. In other words, while 

1096: it is possible to choose an ensemble of galaxies, protogalaxies and protogalactic 

1097: fragments that, once assembled, would produce a GC system with the appropriate

1098: metallicity distribution, the required luminosity function of these objects

1099: seems overly steep compared to that measured at the present time.

1100: This suggests that, in agreement with the previous conclusions

1101: based on dynamical arguments (Merritt 1985; Lauer 1985), cannibalism 

1102: through dynamical friction is not the primary means by which cD galaxies 

1103: are assembled. The properties of the GC system instead favor a scenario 

1104: ($e.g.$, Dubinski 1990) in which the cDs form rapidly, and at early-times, 

1105: via hierarchical merging prior to cluster virialization.

1106: 

1107: \acknowledgments

1108: 

1109: We thank J. Holtzman for providing the transformation equations used in 

1110: \S\ref{sec:point}, and K. Gebhardt for providing routines to calculate the DIP statistic.

1111: Support for program GO-8184 was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope 

1112: Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in 

1113: Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.

1114: Support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation through a grant 

1115: from the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NSF 

1116: cooperative agreement AST-9613615 and by Fundaci\'on Andes under project No.C-13442.

1117: MJW acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-0205960.

1118: DM is partially supported by FONDAP Center for Astrophysics 15010003.

1119: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is 

1120: operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under

1121: contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

1122: 

1123: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1124: \bibitem[Ashman \& Zepf 1992]{} Ashman, K.M., \& Zepf, S.E. 1992, \apj, 384, 50

1125: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Oh 1996]{} Bahcall, N.A., \& Oh, S.P. 1996, \apj, 462, L49

1126: \bibitem[Barmby et al. 2000]{} Barmby, P., Huchra, J.P., Brodie, J.P., Forbes, D.A., 

1127: Schroder, L.L., \& Grillmair, C.J. 2000, \aj, 119, 727

1128: \bibitem[Beasley et~al. 2000]{} Beasley, M.A., Sharples, R.M., Bridges, T.J., Hanes, D.A.,

1129: Zepf, S.E., Ashman, K.M., \& Geisler, D. 2000, \mnras, 318, 1249

1130: \bibitem[Benstein et~al. 1995]{} Bernstein, G.M., Nichol, R.C., Tyson, J.A., Ulmer, 

1131: M.P., \& Wittman, D. 1996, \aj, 110, 1507

1132: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts 1996]{} Bertin, E. \& Arnouts, S. 1996, \aaps, 117, 393

1133: \bibitem[Beers, Flynn \& Gebhardt 1990]{} Beers, T.C., Flynn, K., \& Gebhardt, K. 1990, \aj, 100, 32

1134: \bibitem[Beijersbergen, Schaap  \& van der Hulst 2002]{} Beijersbergen, M.,

1135: Schaap, W.E., \& van der Hulst, J.M. 2002, \aap, 390, 817

1136: \bibitem[Bird and Beers 1993]{} Bird, C.M., \& Beers, T.C. 1993, \aj, 105, 1596

1137: \bibitem[Blakeslee 1999]{} Blakeslee, J.P. 1999, \aj, 118, 1506

1138: \bibitem[Blakeslee \& Tonry 1992]{} Blakeslee, J.P., \& Tonry, J.L. 1992, \aj, 103, 1457

1139: \bibitem[Blakeslee, Tonry \& Metzger 1997]{} Blakeslee, J.P., Tonry, J.L., \& Metzger, M.R. 1997, 

1140: \aj, 114, 482

1141: \bibitem[Bode et~al 1994]{} Bode, P.W., Berrington, R.C., Cohn, H.C., \& Lugger, P.M. 1994,

1142: \apj, 433,479

1143: \bibitem[Bonatto, Bica \& Alloin 1995]{} Bonatto, C., Bica, E., \& Alloin, D. 1995.

1144: \aaps, 112, 71

1145: \bibitem[Bridges et~al. 1996]{} Bridges, T.~J., Carter, D., Harris, W.~E., \& Pritchet, C.~J.

1146: 1996, \mnras, 281, 1290

1147: \bibitem[Cardelli, Clayton \& Mathis 1989]{} Cardelli, J.A., Clayton, G.C., \& Mathis, J.S. 1989,

1148: \apj, 345, 245

1149: \bibitem[Cohen, Blakeslee \& C\^ot\'e 2003]{} Cohen, J.G., Blakeslee, J.P., \& C\^ot\'e, P. 

1150: 2003, \apj, in press

1151: \bibitem[Colless \& Dunn 1996]{} Colless, Matthew, D., \& Andrew, M. 1996, \apj, 458, 435

1152: \bibitem[C\^ot\'e, Marzke \& West 1998]{} C\^ot\'e, P., Marzke, R.O., \& West, M.J. 1998, 

1153: \apj, 501, 554

1154: \bibitem[C\^ot\'e et~al. 2000]{} C\^ot\'e, P., Marzke, R.O., West, M.J., \& Minniti, D. 2000, 

1155: \apj, 533, 869

1156: \bibitem[C\^ot\'e, West \& Marzke 2002]{} C\^ot\'e, P., West, M.J., \& Marzke, R.O. 2002, 

1157: \apj, 567, 853 

1158: \bibitem[de Juan, Colina, \& P\'erez-Fournon 1994]{} de Juan, L., Colina, L., \& P\'erez-Fournon, 

1159: I. 1994, \apjs, 91, 507

1160: \bibitem[de Propris et~al. 1995]{} de Propris, R., Pritchet, C.J., Harris, W.E., \& 

1161: McClure, R.D. 1995, \apj, 450, 534

1162: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs \& Nieto 1978]{} de Vaucouleurs, G., \& Nieto, J.-L. 1978,

1163: \apj, 220, 449

1164: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs et~al. 1995]{} de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A.,

1165: Corwin, H.G., Buta, R.J., Paturel, G., \& Fouque, P. 1995, Third Reference Catalogue of 

1166: Bright Galaxies (RC3), (Austin: University of Texas Press).

1167: \bibitem[Dolphin 2000]{} Dolphin, A.E. 2000, \pasp, 112, 1397

1168: \bibitem[Dressler 1980]{} Dressler, A. 1980, \apjs, 42, 565

1169: \bibitem[Dubinski 1998]{} Dubinski, J. 1998, \apj, 502, 141

1170: \bibitem[Fabian 1994]{} Fabian, A.C. 1994, \araa, 32, 277

1171: \bibitem[Finch 1977]{} Finch, S.J. 1977, J. Amer. Stat. Assoc., 72, 387

1172: \bibitem[Fleming et~al. 1995]{} Fleming, D.E.B., Harris, W.E., Pritchet, C.J., \& Hanes, 

1173: D.A. 1995, \aj, 109, 1044

1174: \bibitem[Freedman et~al. 2001]{} Freedman, W.L., et~al. 2001, \apj, 553, 47

1175: \bibitem[Forbes et~al. 1998]{} Forbes, D.A., Grillmair, C.J., Williger, G.M., \& 

1176: Elson, R.A.W., \& Brodie, J.P. 1998, \mnras, 293, 325

1177: \bibitem[Fukuguta et~al. 1995]{} Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Ichikawa, T. 1995, \pasp, 107, 945

1178: \bibitem[Funato, Makino \& Ebisuzaki 1993]{} Funato, Y., Makino, J., \& Ebisuzaki, T. 1993,

1179:  \pasj, 45, 289

1180: \bibitem[Garijo, Athanassoula \& Garc\'{\i}a-G\'omez 1997]{} Garijo, A., Athanassoula, E., \&

1181:  Garc\'{\i}a-G\'omez, C. 1997, \aap, 327, 930

1182: \bibitem[Hanes \& Whittaker 1987]{} Hanes, D.A., \& Whittaker, D.G. 1987, \aj, 94, 906

1183: \bibitem[Harris \& van den Bergh 1981]{} Harris, W.E., \& van den Bergh, S. 1981, \aj, 86, 1627

1184: \bibitem[Harris, Harris, \& McLaughlin 1998]{} Harris, W.E., Harris, G.L.H., \& McLaughlin, D.E.

1185: 1998, \aj, 115, 1801

1186: \bibitem[Harris 1988]{} Harris, W.E. 1988, in The Harlow-Shapley Symposium on Globular Cluster 

1187: Systems in Galaxies, ed. J. E. Grindlay \& A. G. D. Philip (Dordrecht: Reidel), 237

1188: \bibitem[Harris 2001]{} Harris, W.E. 2001, in Star Clusters, Saas-Fee Advanced School 28, 

1189: ed. L. Labhardt \& B. Binggeli (Berlin:Springer), 223

1190: \bibitem[Harris, Pritchet \& McClure 1995]{} Harris, W.E., Pritchet, C.J., \& McClure, R.D. 1995,

1191: \apj, 441, 120

1192: \bibitem[Hartigan \& Hartigan 1985]{} Hartigan, J.A., \& Hartigan, P.M. 1985, Ann. Statist., 13, 70

1193: \bibitem[Hausman \& Ostriker 1978]{} Hausman, M.A., \& Ostriker, J.P. 1978, \apj, 224, 320

1194: \bibitem[Hoaglin et~al. 1983]{} Hoaglin, D.C., Mosteller, F., \& Tukey, J.W. 1983, Understanding

1195: Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis (New York: Wiley)

1196: \bibitem[Hoessel \& Schneider 1985]{} Hoessel, J.G., \& Schneider, D.P. 1985, \aj, 90, 1648

1197: \bibitem[Holtzman et~al. 1995]{} Holtzman, J.A., Burrows, C.J., Casertano, S., 

1198: Hester. J.J., Trauger, J.T., Watson, A.M., \& Worthey, G. 1995, \pasp, 107, 1065

1199: \bibitem[Jedrzejewski 1987]{} Jedrzejewski, R.I. 1987, \mnras, 226,747

1200: \bibitem[Jord\'an et~al. 2002]{} Jord\'an, A., C\^ot\'e, P., West, M.J., \& Marzke, R.O. 2002,

1201: \apj, 576, L113

1202: \bibitem[J{\o}rgensen, Franx \& Kj{\ae}rgaard 1992]{} J{\o}rgensen, I.,  Franx, M. 

1203: \& Kj{\ae}rgaard, P. 1992, 

1204: \aaps, 95, 489

1205: \bibitem[Kaastra et~al. 2001]{} Kaastra, J.S., Ferrigno, C., Tamura, T., Paerels, 

1206: F.B.S., Peterson, J.R., \& Mittaz, J.P.D. 2001, \aap, 365, L99

1207: \bibitem[Kim et al. 2002]{} Kim et al. 2002, in Tracing Cosmic Evolution with Galaxy Clusters,

1208: ed. S. Borgani, M. Mezzetti, \& R. Valdarnini (San Francisco: ASP), 395

1209: \bibitem[Kinney et~al. 1996]{} Kinney, A.L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R.C., McQuade, K.,

1210: Storchi-Bergmann, T., \& Scmitt, H.R. 1996, \apj, 467, 38

1211: \bibitem[Kundu \& Whitmore 2001]{} Kundu, A., \& Whitmore, B.C. 2001, \aj, 122, 1251

1212: \bibitem[Lambas, Groth \& Peebles 1988]{} Lambas, D.G., Groth, E.J., \& Peebles, P.J.E.

1213: 1988, \aj, 95, 996

1214: \bibitem[Larsen et~al. 2001]{} Larsen, S.S., Brodie, J.P., Huchra, J.P., Forbes, D.A., \& 

1215: Grillmair, C.J. 2001, \aj, 121, 2974

1216: \bibitem[Lauer 1985]{} Lauer, T.R. 1985, \apj, 292, 104

1217: \bibitem[Lauer 1988]{} Lauer, T.R. 1988, \apj, 325, 49

1218: \bibitem[Leir \& van den Bergh 1977]{} Leir, A.A., \& van den Bergh, S. 1977, \apjs, 34, 381

1219: \bibitem[Malumuth \& Kirshner 1985]{} Malumuth, E.M., \& Kirshner, R.P. 1985, \apj, 291, 8

1220: \bibitem[Maraston 1998]{} Maraston, C. 1998, \mnras, 300, 872

1221: \bibitem[Mar\'{\i}n-Franch \& Aparicio 2002]{}  Mar\'{\i}n-Franch, A. \& Aparicio, A. 2002, 

1222: \apj, 568, 174

1223: \bibitem[McLaughlin 1999a]{} McLaughlin, D.E. 1999, \aj, 117, 2398

1224: \bibitem[McLaughlin 1999b]{} McLaughlin, D.E. 1999, \apj, 512, L9

1225: \bibitem[McLaughlin, Harris \& Hanes 1994]{} McLaughlin, D.E., Harris, W.E., \& Hanes, D.A. 

1226: 1994, \apj, 422, 486

1227: \bibitem[Merrifield \& Kent 1991]{} Merrifield, M.R., \& Kent, S.M. 1991, \aj, 101, 783

1228: \bibitem[Merritt 1984]{} Merritt, D. 1984, \apj, 276, 26

1229: \bibitem[Merritt 1985]{} Merritt, D. 1985, \apj, 289, 18

1230: \bibitem[Merritt \& Tremblay 1994]{} Merritt, D., \& Tremblay, B. 1994, \aj, 108, 514

1231: \bibitem[Mobasher et~al. 2003]{} Mobasher, B., Colless, M., Carter, D., Poggianti, B.M., 

1232: Bridges, T.J., Kranz, K., Komiyama, Y., Kashikawa, N., Yagi, M., \& Okamura, S. 2003,

1233: \apj, 587, 605

1234: \bibitem[Neumann et~al. 2003]{} Neumann, D.M., Arnaud, M., Gastaud, R., Aghanim, N., Lumb, D., 

1235: Briel, U.G., Vestrand, W.T., Stewart, G.C., Molendi, S., Mittaz, J.P.D. 2003, \aap, 365, 74

1236: \bibitem[Oemler 1976]{} Oemler, A. 1976, \apj, 209, 693

1237: \bibitem[Ostriker \& Tremaine 1975]{} Ostriker, J.P., \& Tremaine, S.D. 1975, \apj, 202, L113

1238: \bibitem[Peletier et~al. 1990]{} Peletier, R.~F., Davies, R.~L., Illingworth, G.~D., 

1239: 	Davis, L.~E., \& Cawson, M. 1990, \aj, 100, 1091

1240: \bibitem[Peterson et~al. 2001]{} Peterson, J.R., Paerels, F.B.S., Kaastra, J.S., Arnaud, M., 

1241: Reiprich, T.H., Fabian, A.C., Mushotzky, R.F., Jernigan, J.G., \& Sakelliou, I. 2001, \aap, 

1242: 365, L104

1243: \bibitem[Plionis 1994]{} Plionis, M. 1994 \apjs, 95, 401

1244: \bibitem[Poggianti 1987]{} Poggianti, B.M. 1997, \aaps, 122, 399

1245: \bibitem[Porter 1989]{} Porter, A.C. 1989 \pasp, 101, 134

1246: \bibitem[Porter, Schneider \& Hoessel 1991]{} Porter, A.C.,  Schneider, D.P., \& Hoessel J.G. 1991,

1247: \aj, 101, 1561

1248: \bibitem[Rhee, van Haarlem \& Katgert 1991]{} Rhee, G. F. R. N.,  van Haarlem, M. P., \& 

1249: Katgert, P. 1991, \aaps, 91, 513

1250: \bibitem[Richstone 1976]{} Richstone, D.O. 1976, \apj, 204, 642

1251: \bibitem[Richstone \& Malumuth 1983]{} Richstone, D.O., \& Malumuth, E.M. 1983, \apj, 268, 30

1252: \bibitem[Sandage \& Hardy 1973]{} Sandage,A., \& Hardy, E. 1973, \apj, 183, 743

1253: \bibitem[Schlegel, Finkbeiner \& Davis 1998]{} Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., \& Davis, M. 

1254: 	1998, \apj, 500, 525

1255: \bibitem[Schechter 1976]{} Schechter, P.L. 1976, \apj, 203, 297

1256: \bibitem[Schombert 1986]{} Schombert, J.M. 1986, \apjs, 60, 603

1257: \bibitem[Schombert 1988]{} Schombert, J.M. 1988, \apj, 328, 475

1258: \bibitem[Schweizer 1987]{} Schweizer, F. 1987, in Nearly Normal Galaxies, ed. S. Faber (New York: Springer), 18

1259: \bibitem[Secker 1995]{} Secker, J. 1995, \pasp, 107, 496

1260: \bibitem[Secker \& Harris 1993]{} Secker, J., \& Harris W.E. 1993, \aj, 105, 1358

1261: \bibitem[Secker, Harris \& Plummer 1997]{} Secker, J., Harris W.E., Plummer, J.D. 1997, \pasp, 109, 1377

1262: \bibitem[Shetrone, C\^ot\'e \& Sargent 2001]{} Shetrone, M.D., C\^ot\'e, P., \& Sargent, W.L.W.

1263: 2001, \apj, 548, 592

1264: \bibitem[Silverman 1986]{} Silverman, B.W. 1986, Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis 

1265: (New York: Chapman \& Hall)

1266: \bibitem[spergel et~al. 2003]{} Spergel, D.~N., Verde, L., Peiris, H.~V., Komatsu, E., 

1267: Nolta, M.~R., Bennett, C.~L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G.,  

1268: Jarosik, N., Kogut, A., Limon, M., Meyer, S.~S.,  

1269: Page, L., Tucker, G.~S., Weiland, J.~L., Wollack, E. \& Wright, E.~L. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175

1270: \bibitem[Stetson 1987]{} Stetson, P.B. 1987, \pasp, 99, 191

1271: \bibitem[Stetson 1993]{} Stetson, P.B. 1993, in IAU Colloq. 136, Stellar Photometry: Current 

1272: Techniques and Future Developments, ed. C. J. Butler \& I. Elliot (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 291

1273: \bibitem[Stetson \& Harris 1988]{} Stetson, P.B., \& Harris, W.E. 1988, \aj, 96, 909

1274: \bibitem[Tamura et~al. 2001]{} Tamura, T., Kaastra, J.S., Peterson, J.R., Paerels, F.B.S., 

1275: Mittaz, J.P.D., Trudolyubov, S.P., Stewart, G., Fabian, A.C, Mushotzky, R.F., Lumb, D.H., 

1276: \& Ikebe, Y. 2001, \aap, 365, L87

1277: \bibitem[Tolstoy et~al. 2003]{} Tolstoy, E., Venn, K.A., Shetrone, M.D., Primas, F., Hill, V., 

1278: Kaufer, A., \& Szeifert, T. 2003, \aj, 125, 707

1279: \bibitem[Trager et~al. 2000]{} Trager, S.C., Faber, S.M., Worthey, G., \& Gonz\'alez, J.J. 2000,

1280: \aj, 119, 1645

1281: \bibitem[Tran et~al. 2001]{} Tran, H.D., Tsvetanov, Z., Ford, H.C., Davies, J., Jaffe, W., 

1282: van den Bosch, F.C., \& Rest, A. 2001, \aj, 121, 2928

1283: \bibitem[Trentham, N. 1997]{} Trentham, N. 1997, \mnras, 286, 133

1284: \bibitem[van den Bergh 1992]{} van den Bergh, S. 1992, \aj, 110, 2700

1285: \bibitem[van den Bergh 2001]{} van den Bergh, S. 2001, \pasp, 113, 154

1286: \bibitem[West 1994]{} West, M.J. 1994, \mnras, 268, 755

1287: \bibitem[White 1976]{} White, S.D.M. 1976, \mnras, 174, 19 

1288: \bibitem[Whitmore et~al. 1995]{} Whitmore, B.C., Sparks, W.B., Lucas, R.A., Macchetto, F.D., \&

1289: Biretta, J.A. 1995, \apj, 454, L73

1290: \bibitem[Wu, Xue \& Fang 1999]{} Wu, X.-P., Xue, Y.-J., \& Fang, L.-Z. 1999, \apj, 524, 22

1291: \bibitem[Zabludoff, Geller \& Huchra 1990]{} Zabludoff, A., Geller, M.J., \& Huchra, J.P. 1990, 

1292: \apjs, 74, 1

1293: \end{thebibliography}

1294: 

1295: \clearpage

1296: 

1297: \begin{figure}

1298: \plotone{Jordan.fig1.ps}

1299: \figcaption[Jordan.fig1.ps]{\textit{(Left Panel)}

1300: Surface brightness profiles for NGC~541 in $B$ (filled squares) and $I$ (filled circles). 

1301: The squares are a Gunn-Thuan $r$-band profile from de Juan et~al. (1994). 

1302: The dot-dashed lines are best-fit de Vaucouleurs laws in the range $1.4 < r^{1/4} < 1.8$.

1303: Note the flattening inside $r \simeq 1^{\prime\prime}$ caused by the

1304: central dust disk (see Figure~\ref{fig:nuc}).

1305: \textit{(Right Panels)} Ellipticity ($top$), position angle ($middle$) and $B_4$ ($bottom$) 

1306: as a function of galactocentric distance. The arrow in the middle panel indicates the position 

1307: angle of the major axis of Abell 194 (Lambas, Groth \& Peebles 1988; Plionis 1994).

1308: \label{fig:n541sb}

1309: }

1310: \end{figure}

1311: 

1312: 

1313: %\clearpage

1314: 

1315: \begin{figure}

1316: \plotone{Jordan.fig2.ps}

1317: \figcaption[Jordan.fig2.ps]{\textit{(Left Panel)}

1318: Surface brightness profiles for NGC~2832 in $B$ (filled squares) and $I$ (filled circles). 

1319: The squares and circles are respective $B$- and $R$-band profiles from Peletier et~al. 

1320: (1990). Crosses denote the photographic profile of Schombert (1986).

1321: The dot-dashed lines are best-fit de Vaucouleurs laws in the range $1.4 < r^{1/4} < 1.8$.

1322: \textit{(Right Panels)} Ellipticity ($top$), position angle ($middle$) and $B_4$ ($bottom$) 

1323: as a function of galactocentric distance. The arrow in the middle panel indicates the position 

1324: angle of the major axis of Abell 779 (Plionis 1994).

1325: \label{fig:n2832sb}

1326: }

1327: \end{figure}

1328: 

1329: 

1330: \clearpage

1331: 

1332: \begin{figure}

1333: \plotone{Jordan.fig3.ps}

1334: \figcaption[Jordan.fig3.ps]{\textit{(Left Panel)}

1335: Surface brightness profiles for NGC~4839 in $B$ (crosses) and $I$ (filled circles). The

1336: squares and circles are respective $B$- and $r$-band profiles from J{\o}rgensen, 

1337: Franx \& Kj{\ae}rgaard (1992). Crosses denote the photographic profile of Schombert (1986).

1338: The dot-dashed lines are best-fit de Vaucouleurs laws in the range $1.4 < r^{1/4} < 1.8$.

1339: \textit{(Right Panels)} Ellipticity ($top$), position angle ($middle$) and $B_4$ ($bottom$) 

1340: as a function of galactocentric distance. The arrow in the middle panel indicates the position 

1341: angle of the major axis of Abell 1656 (Rhee, van Haarlen \& Katgert 1991; Plionis 1994).

1342: \label{fig:n4839sb}

1343: }

1344: \end{figure}

1345: 

1346: 

1347: %\clearpage

1348: 

1349: \begin{figure}

1350: \plotone{Jordan.fig4.ps}

1351: \figcaption[Jordan.fig4.ps]{\textit{(Left Panel)}

1352: Surface brightness profiles for NGC~7768 in $B$ (crosses) and $I$ (filled circles). 

1353: The squares are a $V$-band profile from Malumuth \& Kirshner (1985), while the

1354: crosses denote the photographic profile of Schombert (1986).

1355: The dot-dashed lines are best-fit de Vaucouleurs laws in the range $1.4 < r^{1/4} < 1.8$.

1356: Note the flattening inside $r \simeq 0\farcs5$ caused by the

1357: central dust disk (see Figure~\ref{fig:nuc}).

1358: \textit{(Right Panel)} Ellipticity ($top$), position angle ($middle$) and $B_4$ 

1359: ($bottom$) as a function of galactocentric distance. The arrow in the middle panel 

1360: indicates the position angle of the major axis of Abell 2666 (Lambas, Groth \& 

1361: Peebles 1988).

1362: \label{fig:n7768sb}

1363: }

1364: \end{figure}

1365: 

1366: \clearpage

1367: 

1368: \begin{figure}

1369: \plottwo{Jordan.fig5a.ps}{Jordan.fig5b.ps}

1370: \figcaption[nuc]{F450W images of the central regions of NGC~541 and NGC~7768. Note the 

1371: obvious dust disks.

1372: \label{fig:nuc}}

1373: \end{figure}

1374: 

1375: \clearpage

1376: 

1377: \begin{figure}

1378: \plotone{galaxy.ps}

1379: \figcaption[galaxy.ps]{$I$-band image of NGC~541 taken with FORS1 at the VLT.

1380: North is up and East is to the left in this image, which measures $6.8' \times 6.8'$.

1381: Overlayed are the fitted ellipses for NGC~541, along with the WFPC2 field of view.

1382: \label{fig:n541vlt}}

1383: \end{figure}

1384: 

1385: \clearpage

1386: 

1387: \begin{figure}

1388: \plotone{Jordan.fig7.ps}

1389: \figcaption[Jordan.fig7.ps]{

1390: \textit{(Left Panels)} Comparison of {\sl HST} and VLT surface photometry for 

1391: NGC~541 in the $B$ (bottom) and $I$ (top) bandpasses. The dotted line

1392: shows the sky brightness in the VLT frames; the dashed line is the

1393: corresponding value in the {\sl HST} frames. The VLT profile was shifted to 

1394: agree with that from {\sl HST} in the region $1.4 < r^{1/4} < 1.8$ ($i.e.,$ 

1395: between 4$^{\prime\prime}$ and 10$^{\prime\prime}$). The dot-dashed

1396: line is the best-fit de Vaucouleurs law in this range. The cD envelope is 

1397: clearly visible as the excess above this line, beginning at 

1398: $\approx 10^{\prime\prime}$.

1399: \textit{(Right Panels)} Comparison of the ellipticity ($top$), position 

1400: angle ($middle$) and $B_4$ ($bottom$) measurements as a function of $r^{1/4}$. 

1401: \label{fig:vlthst}}

1402: \end{figure}

1403: 

1404: \clearpage

1405: 

1406: \begin{figure}

1407: \plotone{Jordan.fig8.ps}

1408: \figcaption[Jordan.fig8.ps]{k-correction, $K(B-I)_0$, plotted as a function of 

1409: dereddened rest frame color, $(B-I)_0$. Triangles and filled circles 

1410: indicate the corrections for the galaxies with the lowest 

1411: (NGC~541) and highest (NGC~7768) redshifts in our sample. The dotted 

1412: lines are the adopted best-fit linear relations. Note the sizable 

1413: extrapolation needed to correct the colors of the bluest objects.

1414: \label{fig:kcorr}}

1415: \end{figure}

1416: 

1417: \clearpage

1418: 

1419: \begin{figure}

1420: \plotone{Jordan.fig9.ps}

1421: \figcaption[Jordan.fig9.ps]{

1422: Color magnitude diagrams for globular cluster candidates in our four program

1423: galaxies. The magnitudes and colors have been corrected for reddening and 

1424: extinction; k-corrections have been applied to only the latter. The dashed 

1425: lines show the color range, $1.1 \le (B-I)_0 \le 2.4$, used to isolate

1426: globular clusters from foreground stars and background galaxies.

1427: \label{fig:cmd}}

1428: \end{figure}

1429: 

1430: \clearpage

1431: 

1432: \begin{figure}

1433: \plotone{Jordan.fig10.ps}

1434: \figcaption[Jordan.fig10.ps]{

1435: Distribution of dereddened, k-corrected colors of globular cluster candidates

1436: with color errors $\sigma{(B-I)} < 0.3$ mag. The number

1437: of candidates is indicated in each panel. The solid curves are kernel density estimates 

1438: of the color distributions, along with smoothed bootstrap estimates of their 90\% 

1439: confidence bands (dashed curves). 

1440: \label{fig:hists}}

1441: \end{figure}

1442: 

1443: \clearpage

1444: 

1445: \begin{figure}

1446: \plotone{Jordan.fig11.ps}

1447: \figcaption[Jordan.fig11.ps]{

1448: Dereddened, $K$-corrected colors of globular cluster candidates plotted as a function of 

1449: galactocentric radius for each of our program galaxies. The solid line is the line of 

1450: best fit for objects with $\sigma{(B-I)} \leq 0.25$ mag. The dashed line is the color 

1451: profile of the underlying galaxy light.

1452: \label{fig:bivsr}}

1453: \end{figure}

1454: 

1455: \clearpage

1456: 

1457: \begin{figure}

1458: \plotone{Jordan.fig12.ps}

1459: \figcaption[Jordan.fig12.ps]{\textit{(Left Panel)} Mean metallicity of globular clusters (small filled 

1460: circles) and stars (small open circles), plotted as a function of host galaxy absolute 

1461: magnitude. Circled points indicate the four cD galaxies examined here.

1462: The dashed lines are the lines of best-fit for the two samples.

1463: \textit{(Right Panel)} Metallicity offset $\Delta$[Fe/H] between stars and globular 

1464: clusters, plotted as a function of host galaxy absolute magnitude. The dashed line

1465: indicates the weighted average: ${\Delta}$[Fe/H] = 0.79$\pm$0.04~dex.

1466: Circled points indicate the four cD galaxies examined here.

1467: \label{fig:metoffset}}

1468: \end{figure}

1469: 

1470: \clearpage

1471: 

1472: \begin{figure}

1473: \plotone{pspec1.ps}

1474: \figcaption[pspec1.ps]{

1475: Probability surface of ${\alpha}$-${\zeta}$ determined from our Monte Carlo simulations 

1476: of the globular cluster metallicity distribution for NGC~541.  Each pixel in this

1477: 30$\times$20 image is proportional to the mean KS probability of 100 simulations for 

1478: that ${\alpha}$-${\zeta}$ pair (in the sense that darker pixels have higher probabilities). 

1479: The four coloured pixels mark the location in the ${\alpha}$-${\zeta}$ plane of the 

1480: simulations shown in the next figure.

1481: \label{fig:ks541}}

1482: \end{figure}

1483: 

1484: %\clearpage

1485: 

1486: \begin{figure}

1487: \plotone{Jordan.fig14.ps}

1488: \figcaption[Jordan.fig14.ps]{

1489: {\it (Upper Panel)} Cumulative metallicity distribution of 208 globular cluster candidates 

1490: associated with NGC541 (black curve). The four colored curves corresponds to the simulations

1491: marked by the colored crosses in Figure~\ref{fig:ks541}.

1492: In each case, a KS test indicates that there is a better than 99\%

1493: probability that it was drawn from the same parent distribution as the real data.

1494: {\it (Lower Panel)} Protogalactic mass spectra corresponding to the simulated metallicity 

1495: distributions shown above.  The dotted lines show

1496: powerlaw mass functions, $N({\cal M}) \propto {\cal M}^{-\gamma}$, with exponents of 

1497: $\gamma = -2$, $-1.6$, and $-1.2$. The vertical arrow denotes the total mass of the 

1498: final galaxy. A constant mass-to-light ratio of ${\Upsilon_V} = 5$ has been assumed 

1499: in the conversion of luminosities to masses for both the final galaxy and the 

1500: protogalactic fragments. 

1501: \label{fig:mdf541}}

1502: \end{figure}

1503: 

1504: \clearpage

1505: 

1506: \begin{figure}

1507: \plotone{pspec2.ps}

1508: \figcaption[pspec2.ps]{

1509: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:ks541}, except for NGC~2832.

1510: \label{fig:ks2832}}

1511: \end{figure}

1512: 

1513: %\clearpage

1514: 

1515: \begin{figure}

1516: \plotone{Jordan.fig16.ps}

1517: \figcaption[Jordan.fig16.ps]{

1518: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:mdf541}, except for NGC~2832. The cumulative metallicity distribution 

1519: is based on a total of 323 candidate globular clusters.

1520: \label{fig:mdf2832}}

1521: \end{figure}

1522: 

1523: \clearpage

1524: 

1525: \begin{figure}

1526: \plotone{pspec3.ps}

1527: \figcaption[pspec3.ps]{

1528: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:ks541}, except for NGC~4839.

1529: \label{fig:ks4839}}

1530: \end{figure}

1531: 

1532: %\clearpage

1533: 

1534: \begin{figure}

1535: \plotone{Jordan.fig18.ps}

1536: \figcaption[Jordan.fig18.ps]{

1537: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:mdf541}, except for NGC~4839. The cumulative metallicity distribution 

1538: is based on total of 350 candidate globular clusters.

1539: \label{fig:mdf4839}}

1540: \end{figure}

1541: 

1542: \clearpage

1543: 

1544: \begin{figure}

1545: \plotone{pspec4.ps}

1546: \figcaption[pspec4.ps]{

1547: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:ks541}, except for NGC~7768.

1548: \label{fig:ks7768}}

1549: \end{figure}

1550: 

1551: %\clearpage

1552: 

1553: \begin{figure}

1554: \plotone{Jordan.fig20.ps}

1555: \figcaption[Jordan.fig20.ps]{

1556: Same as Figure~\ref{fig:mdf541}, except for NGC 7768. The cumulative metallicity distribution 

1557: is based on total of 123 candidate globular clusters.

1558: \label{fig:mdf7768}}

1559: \end{figure}

1560: 

1561: 

1562: 

1563: \clearpage

1564: 

1565: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}

1566: \tablecaption{Observing Log for GO 8184\label{tab:log}}

1567: \tablewidth{0pt}

1568: \tablehead{

1569: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.}&

1570: \colhead{Filter} & \colhead{Exposure Time}\\

1571: \colhead{} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)}&

1572: \colhead{} & \colhead{(s)}

1573: }

1574: \startdata

1575: NGC~~541  & 01:25:44.3 & --01:22:46 & F450W & 2$\times$1200\\

1576:           &            &            &       & 1$\times$1000\\

1577:           &            &            & F814W & 2$\times$~600\\

1578: NGC~2832  & 09:19:46.9 &  +33:44:59 & F450W & 4$\times$1300\\

1579:           &            &            & F814W & 2$\times$1300\\

1580: NGC~4839  & 12:57:24.2 &  +27:29:54 & F450W & 6$\times$1300\\

1581:           &            &            & F814W & 2$\times$1300\\

1582: NGC~7768  & 23:50:58.6 &  +27:08:51 & F450W & 6$\times$1300\\

1583:           &            &            &       & 1$\times$1200\\

1584:           &            &            & F814W & 2$\times$1300\\

1585:           &            &            &       & 1$\times$1200\\

1586: \enddata

1587: \end{deluxetable}

1588: 

1589: %\clearpage

1590: 

1591: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}

1592: \scriptsize

1593: \tablecolumns{8}

1594: \tablewidth{0pt}

1595: \tablecaption{Properties of Host Clusters\label{tab:prop_clus}}

1596: \tablehead{

1597: \colhead{Galaxy} &

1598: \colhead{Cluster} &

1599: \colhead{$\langle cz\rangle$\tablenotemark{a}} &

1600: \colhead{$\sigma$\tablenotemark{a}} &

1601: \colhead{$T_X$\tablenotemark{b}} &

1602: \colhead{$L_X$\tablenotemark{b}} &

1603: \colhead{Richness Class\tablenotemark{c}} &

1604: \colhead{BM Class\tablenotemark{c}} \\

1605: \colhead{} &

1606: \colhead{} &

1607: \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} &

1608: \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} &

1609: \colhead{(keV)} &

1610: \colhead{(10$^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$)} &

1611: \colhead{} &

1612: \colhead{} 

1613: }

1614: \startdata

1615: N541   & A194  &5388$\pm$61  &  480$^{+48}_{-38}$   &2.63$\pm0.15$ & 0.22$\pm$0.04 &0       &II \\

1616: N2832  & A779  &6887$\pm$110 &  503$^{+100}_{-63}$  &  \nodata     & 0.28$\pm$0.07 &0       &I-II \\

1617: N4839  & A1656 &7339         &  329                 &4.5           &\nodata        &\nodata & \nodata \\

1618: N7768  & A2666 &8086$\pm$105 &  476$^{+95}_{-60}$   &  \nodata     & 0.05          &0       &I \\

1619: \enddata

1620: \tablenotetext{a}{~$\langle cz\rangle $ and $\sigma$ from Zabludoff, Geller \& Huchra (1990),

1621: except for NGC~4839 (Colless \& Dunn 1996).}

1622: \tablenotetext{b}{~X-ray temperatures and luminosities for NGC~541 from Wu, Xue \& Fang (1999).

1623: The X-ray temperature of NGC~4839 is taken from Neumann et~al. (2003).}

1624: \tablenotetext{c}{~Richness and Bautz-Morgan classifications from Leir \& van den Bergh (1977).}

1625: \end{deluxetable}

1626: 

1627: %\clearpage

1628: 

1629: \begin{deluxetable}{rcccrr}

1630: \tablecaption{Surface Brightness Profiles\label{tab:sb_all}}

1631: \tablewidth{0pt}

1632: \tablehead{

1633: \colhead{$r$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\mu_B$} & \colhead{$\mu_I$} & \colhead{$e$} &

1634: \colhead{PA} & \colhead{$B_4$} \\

1635: \colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(mag arcsec$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{(mag arcsec$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{} 

1636: }

1637: \startdata

1638: \multicolumn{6}{c}{NGC~~541} \nl

1639:     0.16 &    15.507 &    17.998 &   0.07 &   120.6 &    -0.007 \\

1640:     0.28 &    15.772 &    18.292 &   0.10 &   128.6 &    -0.004 \\

1641:     0.42 &    16.012 &    18.442 &   0.07 &   166.3 &     0.018 \\

1642:     0.58 &    16.175 &    18.546 &   0.01 &    29.1 &    -0.008 \\

1643:     0.76 &    16.251 &    18.682 &   0.03 &    72.8 &    -0.005 \\

1644: \enddata

1645: \tablenotetext{a}{Semi-major axis distance}

1646: \tablecomments{The complete version of this table is in the electronic

1647: edition of the Journal.  The printed edition contains only a sample.}

1648: \end{deluxetable}

1649: 

1650: \clearpage

1651: 

1652: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}

1653: \tablecaption{GC candidates photometry for NGC~541 \label{tab:n541_gcphot}}

1654: \tablewidth{0pt}

1655: \tablehead{

1656: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{$r$} &\colhead{$\Delta \alpha$} & \colhead{$\Delta \delta$} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$(B-I)$} \\

1657: \colhead{} & \colhead{(arcsec)} &\colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} 

1658: }

1659: \startdata

1660:    1 &     4.047 &    -4.012 &    -0.540 &    24.200 &     2.005\\

1661:    2 &     4.523 &     0.087 &     4.522 &    25.102 &     1.711\\

1662:    3 &     5.292 &    -5.029 &    -1.650 &    24.545 &     1.675\\

1663:    4 &     5.489 &    -5.332 &    -1.308 &    25.594 &     1.956\\

1664:    5 &     5.510 &    -5.369 &     1.243 &    25.321 &     1.861\\

1665: \enddata

1666: \tablecomments{The complete version of this table is in the electronic

1667: edition of the Journal.  The printed edition contains only a sample.}

1668: \end{deluxetable}

1669: 

1670: %\clearpage

1671: 

1672: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}

1673: \tablecaption{GC candidates photometry for NGC~2832 \label{tab:n2832_gcphot}}

1674: \tablewidth{0pt}

1675: \tablehead{

1676: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{$r$} &\colhead{$\Delta \alpha$} & \colhead{$\Delta \delta$} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$(B-I)$} \\

1677: \colhead{} & \colhead{(arcsec)} &\colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} 

1678: }

1679: \startdata

1680:    1 &     3.756 &    -1.916 &     3.402 &    25.260 &     2.113\\

1681:    2 &     4.117 &     2.033 &    -3.753 &    25.842 &     2.273\\

1682:    3 &     4.865 &     4.644 &    -2.960 &    24.936 &     1.813\\

1683:    4 &     4.941 &    -2.327 &    -4.546 &    25.486 &     1.653\\

1684:    5 &     5.286 &     1.442 &     5.149 &    24.968 &     2.113\\

1685: \enddata

1686: \tablecomments{The complete version of this table is in the electronic

1687: edition of the Journal.  The printed edition contains only a sample.}

1688: \end{deluxetable}

1689: 

1690: %\clearpage

1691: 

1692: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}

1693: \tablecaption{GC candidates photometry for NGC~4839 \label{tab:n4839_gcphot}}

1694: \tablewidth{0pt}

1695: \tablehead{

1696: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{$r$} &\colhead{$\Delta \alpha$} & \colhead{$\Delta \delta$} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$(B-I)$} \\

1697: \colhead{} & \colhead{(arcsec)} &\colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} 

1698: }

1699: \startdata

1700:    1 &     3.969 &     3.928 &     1.900 &    25.460 &     2.194\\

1701:    2 &     5.818 &    -0.369 &    -5.809 &    25.387 &     1.565\\

1702:    3 &     6.070 &     6.118 &     2.718 &    26.194 &     1.883\\

1703:    4 &     6.182 &     5.539 &     3.752 &    25.980 &     2.121\\

1704:    5 &     6.277 &    -6.548 &     2.381 &    25.137 &     1.402\\

1705: \enddata

1706: \tablecomments{The complete version of this table is in the electronic

1707: edition of the Journal.  The printed edition contains only a sample.}

1708: \end{deluxetable}

1709: 

1710: %\clearpage

1711: 

1712: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}

1713: \tablecaption{GC candidates photometry for NGC~7768 \label{tab:n7768_gcphot}}

1714: \tablewidth{0pt}

1715: \tablehead{

1716: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{$r$} &\colhead{$\Delta \alpha$} & \colhead{$\Delta \delta$} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$(B-I)$} \\

1717: \colhead{} & \colhead{(arcsec)} &\colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} 

1718: }

1719: \startdata

1720:    1 &     3.593 &    -2.871 &     2.526 &    25.824 &     1.670\\

1721:    2 &     4.855 &     1.898 &    -4.552 &    26.172 &     2.120\\

1722:    3 &     5.717 &     5.231 &     3.319 &    26.242 &     2.038\\

1723:    4 &     8.337 &     9.357 &    -0.428 &    25.635 &     1.853\\

1724:    5 &    10.016 &     1.635 &     9.910 &    26.362 &     1.361\\

1725: \enddata

1726: \tablecomments{The complete version of this table is in the electronic

1727: edition of the Journal.  The printed edition contains only a sample.}

1728: \end{deluxetable}

1729: 

1730: %\clearpage

1731: 

1732: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccc}

1733: \tablecaption{K-corrections\label{tab:kcorr}}

1734: \tablewidth{0pt}

1735: \tablehead{

1736: \colhead{Template} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{$cz$} & \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{$K(B)$} & \colhead{$K(I)$}\\

1737: \colhead{} & \colhead{(dex)} &  \colhead{(km~s$^{-1}$)} &  \colhead{} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)}

1738: }

1739: \startdata

1740: Elliptical & $\sim$ 0 & 5422$\pm$~6 & $0.01809\pm0.00002$ & $0.085$ & $0.020$ \\

1741:            &          & 6948$\pm$~6 & $0.02318\pm0.00002$ & $0.111$ & $0.025$ \\

1742:            &          & 7362$\pm$12 & $0.02456\pm0.00004$ & $0.118$ & $0.027$ \\

1743:            &          & 8192$\pm$16 & $0.02732\pm0.00005$ & $0.130$ & $0.031$ \\

1744: G2         & $-0.4$   & 5422$\pm$~6 & $0.01809\pm0.00002$ & $0.072$ & $0.013$ \\

1745:            &          & 6948$\pm$~6 & $0.02318\pm0.00002$ & $0.092$ & $0.017$ \\

1746:            &          & 7362$\pm$12 & $0.02456\pm0.00004$ & $0.097$ & $0.018$ \\

1747:            &          & 8192$\pm$16 & $0.02732\pm0.00005$ & $0.108$ & $0.021$ \\

1748: G3         & $-1.0$   & 5422$\pm$~6 & $0.01809\pm0.00002$ & $0.052$ & $0.006$ \\

1749:            &          & 6948$\pm$~6 & $0.02318\pm0.00002$ & $0.067$ & $0.007$ \\

1750:            &          & 7362$\pm$12 & $0.02456\pm0.00004$ & $0.071$ & $0.007$ \\

1751:            &          & 8192$\pm$16 & $0.02732\pm0.00005$ & $0.078$ & $0.008$ \\

1752: G4         & $-1.5$   & 5422$\pm$~6 & $0.01809\pm0.00002$ & $0.044$ & $0.004$ \\

1753:            &          & 6948$\pm$~6 & $0.02318\pm0.00002$ & $0.056$ & $0.006$ \\

1754:            &          & 7362$\pm$12 & $0.02456\pm0.00004$ & $0.059$ & $0.006$ \\

1755:            &          & 8192$\pm$16 & $0.02732\pm0.00005$ & $0.066$ & $0.007$ \\

1756: G5         & $-1.9$   & 5422$\pm$~6 & $0.01809\pm0.00002$ & $0.038$ & $0.003$ \\

1757:            &          & 6948$\pm$~6 & $0.02318\pm0.00002$ & $0.048$ & $0.004$ \\

1758:            &          & 7362$\pm$12 & $0.02456\pm0.00004$ & $0.050$ & $0.004$ \\

1759:            &          & 8192$\pm$16 & $0.02732\pm0.00005$ & $0.057$ & $0.005$ \\

1760: \enddata

1761: \end{deluxetable*}

1762: 

1763: %\clearpage

1764: 

1765: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}

1766: \tablecaption{K-correction Coefficients for $(B-I)_0$ \label{tab:lincons}}

1767: \tablewidth{0pt}

1768: \tablehead{

1769: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$C_K$} & \colhead{$D_K$} \\

1770: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(mag)} 

1771: }

1772: \startdata

1773: NGC~~541 & $0.96$ & $0.032$ \\

1774: NGC~2832 & $0.94$ & $0.049$ \\

1775: NGC~4839 & $0.94$ & $0.056$ \\

1776: NGC~7768 & $0.93$ & $0.059$ \\ 

1777: \enddata

1778: \end{deluxetable}

1779: 

1780: %\clearpage

1781: 

1782: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccc}

1783: \tablecaption{Statistics of the Globular Cluster Color Distributions\label{tab:stats}}

1784: \tablewidth{0pt}

1785: \tablehead{

1786: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$C_{BI}$\tablenotemark{a}}& \colhead{$S_{BI}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$AI$\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$TI$\tablenotemark{d}} \\

1787: \colhead{} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}

1788: }

1789: \startdata

1790: NGC~~541 & $1.81^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & $0.28^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $0.24^{+0.49}_{-0.61}$ & $1.02^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$ \\

1791: NGC~2832 & $1.79^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & $0.28^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $0.15^{+0.41}_{-0.61}$ & $1.02^{+0.04}_{-0.08}$ \\

1792: NGC~4839 & $1.71^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & $0.28^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $0.21^{+0.74}_{-0.48}$ & $1.01^{+0.07}_{-0.04}$ \\

1793: NGC~7768 & $1.72^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & $0.28^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ & $0.47^{+0.28}_{-0.83}$ & $0.95^{+0.15}_{-0.03}$ \\

1794: \enddata

1795: \tablenotetext{a}{$C_{BI}$ = biweight location estimator (Beers, Flynn \& Gebhardt 1990).}

1796: \tablenotetext{b}{$S_{BI}$ = biweight scale estimator (Beers, Flynn \& Gebhardt 1990).}

1797: \tablenotetext{c}{$AI$ = assymetry index (Finch 1977).}

1798: \tablenotetext{d}{$TI$ = tail index (Hoaglin, Mosteller \& Tukey 1983).}

1799: \end{deluxetable*}

1800: 

1801: %\clearpage

1802: 

1803: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccc}

1804: \scriptsize

1805: \tablecolumns{8}

1806: \tablewidth{0pt}

1807: \tablecaption{Observed and Derived Photometric Properties of cD Galaxies\label{tab:colorinfo}}

1808: \tablehead{

1809: \colhead{Galaxy} &

1810: \colhead{$E(B-I)$} &

1811: \colhead{$\langle B-I \rangle$$^{\rm gal}_{\rm 0,k}$} &

1812: \colhead{$\langle B-I \rangle$$^{\rm GC}_{\rm 0,k}$} &

1813: \colhead{$V_{\rm tot}$} &

1814: \colhead{$cz$} &

1815: \colhead{$M_{\rm V,tot}$} &

1816: \colhead{$L$/$L^{*}$\tablenotemark{a}}\\

1817: \colhead{} &

1818: \colhead{(mag)} &

1819: \colhead{(mag)} &

1820: \colhead{(mag)} &

1821: \colhead{(mag)} &

1822: \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} &

1823: \colhead{(mag)} &

1824: \colhead{} &

1825: }

1826: \startdata

1827: NGC~~541 & 0.080 & 2.14 & 1.81 & 12.08$\pm$0.15 & 5422$\pm$~6 & $-$22.44$\pm$0.28 & 3.9 \\

1828: NGC~2832 & 0.039 & 2.15 & 1.79 & 11.87$\pm$0.13 & 6948$\pm$~6 & $-$23.10$\pm$0.26 & 7.2 \\

1829: NGC~4839 & 0.023 & 2.17 & 1.71 & 12.06$\pm$0.10 & 7362$\pm$12 & $-$23.02$\pm$0.25 & 6.7 \\

1830: NGC~7768 & 0.087 & 2.22 & 1.72 & 12.30$\pm$0.13 & 8191$\pm$16 & $-$23.10$\pm$0.26 & 7.2 \\

1831: \enddata

1832: \tablenotetext{a}{For $M_R = -21.79 + 5\log{h_{65}}$ (Mobasher et~al. 2003), 

1833: $H_0 = 72$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$ (Freedman et~al. (2001), and $\langle V-R \rangle = 0.61$

1834: Fukugita, Shimasaku \& Ichikawa (1995).}

1835: \end{deluxetable*}

1836: 

1837: %\clearpage

1838: 

1839: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}

1840: \scriptsize

1841: \tablecolumns{4}

1842: \tablewidth{0pt}

1843: \tablecaption{Globular Cluster Specific Frequencies\label{tab:snval}}

1844: \tablehead{

1845: \colhead{Galaxy} &

1846: \colhead{$M_{\rm V}^{\rm met}$}  &

1847: \colhead{$N_{\rm GC}^{\rm met}$} &

1848: \colhead{$S_{\rm N}^{\rm met}$}  \\

1849: \colhead{} &

1850: \colhead{(mag)} &

1851: \colhead{} &

1852: \colhead{}

1853: }

1854: \startdata

1855: NGC~~541 & $-21.40\pm0.2$ & 1620$\pm$450 & $4.4\pm1.5$\\

1856: NGC~2832 & $-22.35\pm0.2$ & 3200$\pm$920 & $3.7\pm1.3$\\

1857: NGC~4839 & $-21.84\pm0.2$ & 3060$\pm$850 & $5.6\pm1.9$\\

1858: NGC~7768 & $-22.33\pm0.2$ & 1850$\pm$570 & $2.2\pm0.8$\\

1859: \enddata

1860: \end{deluxetable}

1861: 

1862: 

1863: 

1864: \end{document}

1865: