1: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,epsfig,psfig]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[aasms4]{article}
3: %%%%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\usepackage{graphicx}
5: %\usepackage{longtable}
6: %\usepackage{latexsym}
7: %\usepackage{amssymb}
8: %\usepackage{lscape}
9:
10: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
11: \documentclass{emulateapj}
12: %\usepackage{natbib}
13: %\citestyle{aa}
14: %\bibliographystyle{aa}
15:
16: \def\double {\baselineskip=0.8truecm
17: \lineskip=0pt
18: \lineskiplimit=0pt}
19: \def\kms{\,km\,s$^{-1}$}
20: \def\m{$^{\rm m}$}
21: \def\si{$\sim$}
22: \def\di{$\div$}
23: \def\av{A$_{\rm V}$ }
24: %\def\mic{~$\mu$ }
25: \def\msol{~M$_\odot$ }
26: \def\msolr{~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$ }
27: \def\micron{\,$\mu$m}
28: \def\hi{H\,{\sc i} }
29: \def\marc{mag~arcsec$^{-2}$}
30:
31: \begin{document}
32:
33: \title{UV properties of early-type galaxies in the Virgo cluster.}
34: \author{
35: A. Boselli\altaffilmark{1}, L. Cortese\altaffilmark{1},
36: J.M. Deharveng\altaffilmark{1},
37: G. Gavazzi\altaffilmark{2},
38: K. S. Yi \altaffilmark{3},
39: A. Gil de Paz\altaffilmark{4},
40: M. Seibert\altaffilmark{5}, S. Boissier \altaffilmark{4},J. Donas\altaffilmark{1},
41: %,T. Barlow\altaffilmark{5}, L. Bianchi\altaffilmark{6},
42: %Y.-I. Byun\altaffilmark{7},
43: %K. Forster\altaffilmark{5}, P. G. Friedman\altaffilmark{5},
44: %T. M. Heckman\altaffilmark{8},
45: %P. Jelinsky\altaffilmark{9},
46: Y.-W. Lee\altaffilmark{6}, B. F. Madore\altaffilmark{4,7},
47: %R. Malina\altaffilmark{2},
48: D. C. Martin\altaffilmark{5},
49: %B. Milliard\altaffilmark{2},
50: %P. Morrissey\altaffilmark{5}, S. Neff\altaffilmark{11},
51: R. M. Rich\altaffilmark{8},
52: Y.-J. Sohn\altaffilmark{6}
53: %D. Schiminovich\altaffilmark{5},
54: %O. Siegmund\altaffilmark{9},
55: %T. Small\altaffilmark{5},
56: %A. S. Szalay\altaffilmark{8},
57: %B. Welsh\altaffilmark{9}, T. K. Wyder\altaffilmark{5}
58: }
59: \altaffiltext{1}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, BP8, Traverse du Siphon, F-13376 Marseille, France}
60: \altaffiltext{2}{Universit\`a degli Studi di Milano - Bicocca, P.zza della Scienza 3, 20126 Milano, Italy}
61: \altaffiltext{3}{Oxford University, Astrophysics, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom}
62: \altaffiltext{4}{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,
63: 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101}
64: \altaffiltext{5}{California Institute of Technology, MC 405-47, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}
65: %\altaffiltext{6}{Center for Astrophysical Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218}
66: \altaffiltext{6}{Center for Space Astrophysics, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Korea}
67: %\altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Homewood Campus, Baltimore, MD 21218}
68: %\altaffiltext{9}{Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley, 601 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720}
69: \altaffiltext{7}{NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 100-22, 770 S. Wilson Ave., Pasadena, CA 91125}
70: %\altaffiltext{11}{Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771}
71: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095}
72:
73: \begin{abstract}
74:
75: We study the UV properties of a volume limited sample of early-type galaxies in the Virgo cluster
76: combining new GALEX far- (1530 \AA) and near-ultraviolet (2310 \AA) data with spectro-photometric data
77: available at other wavelengths. The sample includes 264 ellipticals, lenticulars and dwarfs
78: spanning a large range in luminosity ($M_B$ $\leq$ -15).
79: While the NUV to optical or near-IR color magnitude relations (CMR)
80: are similar to those observed at optical wavelengths, with a monotonic reddening of
81: the color index with increasing
82: luminosity, the $(FUV-V)$ and $(FUV-H)$ CMRs show a discontinuity between massive and dwarf objects.
83: An even more pronounced dichotomy is observed in the $(FUV-NUV)$ CMR.
84: For ellipticals the $(FUV-NUV)$ color
85: becomes bluer with increasing luminosity and with increasing reddening of
86: the optical or near-IR color indices. For the dwarfs the opposite trend is observed.
87: These observational evidences are consistent with the idea that the
88: UV emission is dominated by hot, evolved stars in giant systems,
89: while in dwarf ellipticals residual star formation activity is more common.
90:
91:
92: \end{abstract}
93:
94: \keywords{Galaxies: elliptical and lenticular -- Ultraviolet: galaxies -- Galaxies: clusters:
95: individual: Virgo -- Galaxies: evolution}
96:
97: \section{Introduction}
98:
99: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
100:
101:
102: The excess ultraviolet radiation from early-type galaxies arises
103: from hot stars in late stages of stellar evolution (O'Connell 1999).
104: Whether the so-called UV-upturn depends on the detailed galaxy morphology (ellipticals vs. lenticulars)
105: and, among ellipticals, on luminosity (dEs vs. giant Es) is yet unknown.
106: It would not be surprising if the UV properties of dwarf elliptical galaxies
107: would differ from those of giants, given that other structural (Gavazzi et al. 2005) and
108: kinematic (Van Zee et al. 2004) properties depend on luminosity,
109: due to different star formation histories (single episodic vs. burst)
110: (Ferguson \& Binggeli 1994; Grebel 1999).\\
111: %Beside known structural (Gavazzi et al. 2005) and kinematic (Van Zee et al. 2004) dependencies on luminosity,
112: %systematic differences in the UV properties of giant and dwarf elliptical galaxies
113: %might arise from their different star formation histories (single burst vs. episodic)
114: %(Ferguson \& Binggeli 1994; Grebel 1999).
115: %\\
116:
117: Due to morphological segregation (Whitmore et al$.$ 1993), nearby clusters are the ideal
118: targets for assembling complete, volume limited samples of early-type objects.
119: As part of a study aimed at analyzing the environmental dependence of galaxy evolution,
120: we observed large portions of the Virgo cluster with GALEX (Boselli et al$.$ 2005).
121: Owing to the superior quality of the photographic material obtained by
122: Sandage and collaborators, an extremely accurate and homogeneous morphological classification
123: exists for Virgo galaxies, down to $m_B$ $\leq$ 18 mag ($M_B$ $\leq$-13 assuming a distance of 17 Mpc),
124: allowing a detailed discrimination among different subclasses of early-type
125: galaxies (ellipticals, lenticulars, dwarfs) and an exclusion of
126: quiescent spirals. Furthermore a wealth of ancillary data for many Virgo members,
127: covering a large portion of the
128: electromagnetic spectrum from the visible to the infrared is available from
129: the GOLDMine database (Gavazzi et al$.$ 2003).
130: %The new GALEX data of the Virgo cluster thus provide us with a unique opportunity for studying, for the first
131: %time, the UV properties of dwarf ellipticals and lenticulars, and to compare them to those of bright
132: %ellipticals using a statistically significant sample.}
133:
134:
135: \section{Data}
136:
137: The analysis presented in this work is based on an optically selected sample of
138: early-type galaxies including
139: giant and dwarf systems (E, S0, S0a, dE and dS0) extracted from the Virgo
140: Cluster Catalogue of Binggeli et al. (1985),
141: which is complete to $m_B$ $\leq$18 mag ($M_B$ $\leq$ -13). The Virgo cluster region
142: was observed in spring 2004
143: as part of the All Imaging Survey (AIS) and of the Nearby Galaxy Survey (NGS) carried out by the
144: Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX)
145: in two UV bands: FUV ($\rm \lambda_{eff}=1530\AA, \Delta \lambda=400\AA$)
146: and NUV ($\rm \lambda_{eff}=2310\AA, \Delta \lambda=1000\AA$), covering 427 objects.
147: Details of the GALEX instrument and data characteristics can be found in
148: Martin et al$.$ (2005) and Morrissey et al$.$ (2005).\\
149:
150: The present sample includes all Virgo cluster early-type systems
151: detected in the NUV GALEX band (264 objects, 194 from the NGS); of these, 126 (of which 74 from the
152: NGS) have been also detected in the FUV.
153: The resulting sample is thus ideal for the proposed analysis
154: as it provides us with the first large volume-limited sample
155: of elliptical, lenticular and dwarf galaxies spanning
156: 4 dex in luminosity with homogeneous data.
157: Whenever available, we extracted fluxes from the deep NGS images, obtained with
158: an average integration time
159: of $\sim$ 1500 sec, complete to $m_{AB}$ $\sim$ 21.5 in the NUV and FUV.
160: Elsewhere UV fluxes have been extracted from the less deep
161: AIS images ($\sim$ 70 sq. degrees), obtained with an average integration time of $\sim$ 100 sec,
162: complete to $m_{AB}$ $\sim$ 20 in both the FUV and NUV bands.
163: The resulting sample, although not complete in both UV bands,
164: includes giants and dwarf systems: at a limiting magnitude of $M_B$ $\leq$ -15, 71 \%
165: of the observed galaxies have been detected in the NUV, 46\% in the FUV.
166:
167: All UV images come from the GALEX IR1.0 release.
168: UV fluxes were obtained by integrating GALEX images
169: within elliptical annuli of increasing diameter up to the optical B band 25 mag
170: arcsec$^{-2}$ isophotal radii consistently
171: with the optical and near-IR images. Independent measurements of the same
172: galaxies obtained in different
173: exposures give consistent photometric results within 10\% in the NUV and 15\%
174: in the FUV in the AIS, and about
175: a factor of two better for bright (NUV $\leq$16) galaxies.
176: The statistical uncertainty in the UV photometry
177: is on average a factor of $\sim$ 2 better in the NGS than in the AIS especially
178: for fainter objects.\\
179:
180: UV data have been combined with multifrequency data taken from the
181: GOLDMine database (http:\slash \slash goldmine.mib.infn.it; Gavazzi et al$.$ 2003).
182: These are B and V imaging data, mostly
183: from Gavazzi et al$.$ (2005) and Boselli et al$.$ (2003), and near-IR H imaging
184: from Gavazzi et al$.$ (2000, 2001). Optical and near-IR data
185: have on average a photometric precision of $\sim$ 10\%. Spectroscopic
186: metallicity index Mg$_2$ and velocity dispersion data come from GOLDMine or
187: from Golev \& Prugniel (1998) and Bernardi et al$.$ (2002).
188: Unless specified, we adopt the homogeneous morphological classification of Binggeli et al$.$ (1985)
189: based on high quality photographic material. \\
190:
191: Galaxies analyzed in this work are all bona-fide Virgo cluster members:
192: given the 3-D structure of the cluster, distances
193: have been assigned following the subcluster membership criteria of Gavazzi et al$.$
194: (1999). Owing to the high galactic latitude of Virgo,
195: no galactic extinction correction was applied ($A_B$ $\leq$ 0.05).
196:
197:
198: \section{The UV properties of early-type galaxies}
199:
200: Despite the complex 3-D structure of Virgo (Gavazzi et al$.$ 1999),
201: the uncertainty on the distance (hence on the luminosity)
202: of the target galaxies, does not constitute a major source of dispersion in the
203: determination of the color-magnitude (CMR) relation.
204: Figure 1 shows various UV to optical and
205: near-IR CMRs. Similar results are obtained if, instead of the mass-tracer H band luminosity
206: (Zibetti et al$.$ 2004), we use the B band absolute magnitude.
207:
208:
209: \begin{figure*}
210: \epsscale{0.85}
211: \plotone{f1.eps}
212: \small{\caption{The near-UV (left column) and far-UV (right column) to optical and near-IR
213: color magnitude relations. Colors are in the AB magnitude system. Open circles are for ellipticals,
214: filled circles for dwarfs, crosses for lenticulars (S0-S0a).
215: Galaxies redder than the dashed line are undetectable
216: by the present survey (at the NGS limit). Largest 1$\sigma$ errors for luminous and dwarf systems are given.}}
217: \label{region}
218: \end{figure*}
219:
220: %\noindent
221: The NUV to optical (Fig$.$~1b) and near-IR (Fig$.$~1a) CMRs are well defined
222: and are similar to optical or near-IR
223: CMRs, with brighter galaxies having redder colors, independent of their morphological type:
224: the color index $(NUV-V)$ increases
225: by $\sim$ 2 magnitudes from dwarfs ($L_H$ $\sim$ $10^8$ L$_{H \odot}$)
226: to giants ($L_H$ $\sim$ $10^{11.5}$ L$_{H \odot}$), while $(NUV-H)$ changes by $\sim$ 3 mag.
227: A weak flattening of the relation appears for $L_H$ $\geq$ 10$^{10}$ L$_{H \odot}$.
228: This behavior confirms the one reported by Ferguson (1994) in the $(B-V)$ vs. $M_B$ CMR.\\
229:
230: On the contrary, the FUV to optical (Fig$.$~1d) and near-IR (Fig$.$~1c) CMRs
231: differ systematically for dwarfs and giant
232: systems: galaxies brighter than $L_H$ $\sim$ $10^{9.5}$ L$_{H \odot}$
233: have similar red colors, while for $L_H$ $\leq$ $10^{9.5}$ L$_{H \odot}$ colors become progressively
234: bluer.
235: Even if this trend can be due to a selection effect,
236: (reddest dwarfs being undetectable in the FUV), it is indisputable that there exists
237: a significant population of dEs with bluer colors than Es and S0s.
238: %In both NUV and FUV CMRs the dispersion increases
239: %at lower luminosities, and seems larger in lenticulars (crosses) than in ellipticals
240: %(open circles; {\bf see Table 1}).
241: %Notice however that
242: %the lack of red, low-luminosity galaxies can be due to a selection effect,
243: %the reddest dwarfs being undetectable in the UV.
244:
245: A similar pattern (systematic differences between massive and dwarf systems and
246: between NUV and FUV to optical or near-IR color indices) is obtained using
247: color-color diagrams (not shown).
248:
249:
250: \begin{table}
251: \label{tablefit}
252: \caption {Main relations for early type galaxies}
253: \[
254: \begin{array}{p{0.09\linewidth}ccccc}
255: \hline
256: \noalign{\smallskip}
257: x & y & a & b & R & rms \\
258: \noalign{\smallskip}
259: \hline
260: \noalign{\smallskip}
261: & & {Ellipticals^1}& \\
262: \noalign{\smallskip}
263: \hline
264: \noalign{\smallskip}
265: $L_H$ & FUV-NUV & -0.30\pm0.14 & + 4.52\pm1.52 &-0.47 & 0.31 \\
266: $L_H$ & FUV-H & -0.22\pm0.19 & + 10.55\pm2.10 &-0.28 & 0.43 \\
267: $L_H$ & NUV-H & 0.17\pm0.18 & + 4.85\pm1.85 &0.22 & 0.47 \\
268: $L_H$ & FUV-V & -0.15\pm0.18 & + 8.38\pm1.88 &-0.21 & 0.38 \\
269: $L_H$ & NUV-V & 0.26\pm0.12 & + 2.55\pm1.30 &0.45 & 0.31 \\
270: $B-H$ & FUV-NUV & -0.84\pm0.45 & + 3.22\pm0.98 &-0.43 & 0.32 \\
271: %Mg2 & FUV-NUV & & & \\
272: $\sigma$& FUV-NUV & -1.35\pm0.37 & + 4.39\pm0.89 &-0.69 & 0.26 \\
273: \hline
274: \noalign{\smallskip}
275: & & {Lenticulars}& \\
276: \noalign{\smallskip}
277: \hline
278: \noalign{\smallskip}
279: $L_H$ & FUV-NUV & -0.28\pm0.15 & + 4.40\pm1.62 & -0.31& 0.45 \\
280: $L_H$ & FUV-H & 0.31\pm0.21 & + 0.75\pm2.00 & 0.27 & 0.58 \\
281: $L_H$ & NUV-H & 0.61\pm0.11 & + 0.51\pm1.17 & 0.65 & 0.36 \\
282: $L_H$ & FUV-V & 0.03\pm0.23 & + 6.62\pm2.38 & 0.03 & 0.59 \\
283: $L_H$ & NUV-V & 0.49\pm0.09 & + 0.26\pm1.00 & 0.68 & 0.25 \\
284: $B-H$ & FUV-NUV & -1.00\pm0.32 & + 3.70\pm0.70 & -0.49& 0.42 \\
285: %Mg2 & FUV-NUV & & & \\
286: $\sigma$& FUV-NUV & -1.29\pm0.39 & + 4.28\pm0.84 & -0.58& 0.39 \\
287: \hline
288: \noalign{\smallskip}
289: & & {Dwarfs}& \\
290: \noalign{\smallskip}
291: \hline
292: \noalign{\smallskip}
293: $L_H$ & FUV-NUV & 1.73\pm0.41 & - 13.90\pm2.16 & 0.52 & 0.59 \\
294: $L_H$ & FUV-H & 2.55^*\pm0.55 & - 15.97^*\pm4.96 & 0.68^* & 0.91^* \\
295: $L_H$ & NUV-H & 0.91\pm0.19 & - 2.72 \pm1.68 & 0.56 & 0.57 \\
296: $L_H$ & FUV-V & 1.91^*\pm0.55 & + 11.35^*\pm4.93 & 0.60^* & 0.87^* \\
297: $L_H$ & NUV-V & 0.63\pm0.17 & + 1.28\pm1.05 & 0.49 & 0.47 \\
298: $B-H$ & FUV-NUV & 0.95\pm0.45 & + 0.12\pm0.73 & 0.40 & 0.60 \\
299: %Mg2 & FUV-NUV & & & \\
300: $\sigma$& FUV-NUV & - & - & - \\
301:
302:
303:
304: \noalign{\smallskip}
305: \hline
306: \end{array}
307: \]
308: Notes to Table:
309: Col. 1 and 2: $x$ and $y$ variables;
310: Col. 3 and 4: slope $a$ and intercept $b$ of the bisector linear fit with weighted variables;
311: Col. 5: Pearson correlation coefficient;
312: Col. 6: mean dispersion around the best fit;
313: 1: excluding VCC 1499;
314: *: uncertain values because of the UV detection limit
315: \end{table}
316:
317:
318:
319:
320: %\begin{table}
321: %\label{tablefit}
322: %\caption {Main relations for early-type galaxies}
323: %\[
324: %\begin{array}{p{0.09\linewidth}cccccccc}
325: %\hline
326: %\noalign{\smallskip}
327: %x & y & \multicolumn{2}{c}{E^1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{S0} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{dE} \\
328: % & & R & rms & R & rms & R & rms \\
329: %\noalign{\smallskip}
330: %\hline
331: %$\noalign{\smallskip}
332: %
333: %$L_H$ & FUV-NUV & -0.47 & 0.31 & -0.31& 0.45 & 0.52 & 0.59 \\
334: %$L_H$ & FUV-H & -0.28 & 0.43 & 0.27 & 0.58 & 0.68^* & 0.91^* \\
335: %$L_H$ & NUV-H & 0.22 & 0.47 & 0.65 & 0.36 & 0.56 & 0.57 \\
336: %$L_H$ & FUV-V & -0.21 & 0.38 & 0.03 & 0.59 & 0.60^* & 0.87^* \\
337: %$L_H$ & NUV-V & 0.45 & 0.31 & 0.68 & 0.25 & 0.49 & 0.47 \\
338: %$B-H$ & FUV-NUV & -0.43 & 0.32 & -0.49& 0.42 & 0.40 & 0.60 \\
339: %%Mg2 & FUV-NUV & & & & & & \\
340: %$\sigma$ & FUV-NUV & -0.69 & 0.26 & -0.58& 0.39 & - & - \\
341: %\noalign{\smallskip}
342: %\hline
343: %\end{array}
344: %\]
345: %1: excluding VCC 1499
346: %
347: %*: uncertain values because of the UV detection limit
348: %\end{table}
349:
350: %\begin{figure*}
351: %\epsscale{0.8}
352: %\plotone{figure/colcollet.epsi}
353: %\small{\caption{The relationships between the FUV-V (upper diagrams),
354: %the NUV-V (lower diagrams) and the B-H (left panel) and B-V (right panel) color indices (these last plotted
355: %both in AB and Johnson magnitude system). Symbols as in Fig. 1.}}
356: %\label{region}
357: %\end{figure*}
358:
359:
360: %\noindent
361: %Figure 2 shows different color-color relationships. As for the CMRs, the NUV-V color index is
362: %strongly and monotonically related to the B-H and B-V color indices: galaxies get consistently redder in all color indices.
363: %This behavior is equally shared by dwarfs and giant ellipticals and lenticulars, although dwarfs are
364: %systematically bluer than giants. A flattening in the relation might be present in the red giant population.
365: %The FUV color-color relationships are significantly different. Ellipticals and lenticulars have similar constant
366: %FUV-V color indices ($\sim$ 7) while spanning a large range in optical ($\sim$ 0.3 mag in B-V)
367: %or near-IR ($\sim$ 1 mag in B-H) colors. Only in dwarf ellipticals colors get redder simultaneously
368: %in the FUV, visible and near-IR. The dispersion in the FUV-V color seems higher in lenticulars than ellipticals.
369:
370:
371: \begin{figure*}
372: \epsscale{0.7}
373: \plotone{f2.eps}
374: \small{\caption{The relationship between the UV color index $(FUV-NUV)$ and a) the total H band luminosity,
375: b) the B-H color index,
376: c) the logarithm of the central velocity dispersion and d) the Mg$_2$ index.
377: Symbols are as in Fig. 1.
378: Labeled points indicate objects having unusual radio or optical properties (see Sect. 3).}}
379: \label{region}
380: \end{figure*}
381:
382:
383:
384: The dichotomy between giants and dwarfs is even more apparent in the UV color index
385: $(FUV-NUV)$ (see Fig. 2).
386: The $(FUV-NUV)$ becomes redder with increasing luminosity for dwarf ellipticals while, on the contrary,
387: it becomes bluer for giant ellipticals (Fig. 2a).
388: The blueing relation is tight among ellipticals (see Table 1) and barely observed
389: in lenticulars because of their higher dispersion
390: \footnote{The scatter in the blueing relation among ellipticals decreases significantly
391: (from 0.31 to 0.10)
392: if we exclude the misclassified post-starburst
393: dwarf VCC 1499 (Gavazzi et al$.$ 2001; Deharveng et al$.$ 2002),
394: the radio galaxy M87, VCC 1297 (the highest surface brightness galaxy
395: in the sample of Gavazzi et al$.$ (2005)) and VCC 1146.
396: Beside its extremely high
397: surface brightness, making VCC 1297 a non standard object, we do not have any evidence
398: indicating a peculiar star formation history or present nuclear activity in VCC 1297 and VCC 1146
399: that could justify their exclusion.}.\\
400: A similar behavior between ellipticals and lenticulars
401: is observed in the $(FUV-NUV)$ color relation (Fig. 2b): this mixed giant population becomes bluer in the UV
402: with increasing reddening in the $(B-H)$ color index. \\
403: The behavior of dwarf ellipticals is different: although with a huge dispersion,
404: the $(FUV-NUV)$ color index reddens as the $(B-H)$, $(B-V)$ and $(FUV-V)$ indices (the two last not shown).\\
405: The dichotomy between dwarf and giant systems cannot be observed in the run of $(FUV-NUV)$ vs.
406: central velocity dispersion (which is directly related to the system total dynamical
407: mass; Fig. 2c) nor as a function of the
408: metallicity sensitive (Poggianti et al$.$ 2001) Mg$_2$ Lick index (Fig. 2d)
409: because these two parameters are not available for dwarfs.
410: In ellipticals and lenticulars the UV color index $(FUV-NUV)$ depends on both
411: the metallicity index Mg$_2$ and $\sigma$
412: in a way opposite to the behavior at optical wavelengths,
413: where galaxies are redder when having higher Mg$_2$ and velocity dispersions.
414:
415:
416: \section{Discussion and conclusion}
417:
418: For the first time the UV properties of early-type galaxies have been studied
419: down to $M_B$ $\sim$ -15 mag. The comparison with previous studies is thus limited to
420: the brightest objects.
421: Our CMR can be compared with the one obtained by Yi et al$.$ (2005)
422: based on a complete sample of bright early-type objects ($M_r$ $\leq$ -20 mag)
423: extracted from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
424: (SDSS) by Bernardi et al$.$ (2003). The CMR presented by Yi et al$.$ (2005, $NUV-r$ vs.
425: $M_r$) shows a significantly larger dispersion ($\sigma \geq$ 1.5 mag) than the one found in Virgo
426: (see Table 1).
427: As discussed in Yi et al$.$
428: (2005), the large dispersion in their CMR can be ascribed to galaxies with a
429: mild or residual star formation activity included in the Bernardi et al$.$ (2003)
430: sample. If restricted to the "UV weak" sample, the dispersion in the Yi et al$.$ relation drops to 0.58
431: mag, i.e. still larger than the one seen in the Virgo cluster in the same luminosity range.
432: Despite possible larger distance uncertainties in the
433: SDSS, the difference in the scatter between our and the Yi et al$.$ (2005) CMR
434: might arise from the classification in the SDSS
435: that uses concentration indices and luminosity profiles
436: in discriminating hot from rotating systems.
437: It is in fact conceivable that the larger dispersion in the CMR of "UV weak"
438: galaxies of Yi et al$.$ (2005) comes from the contamination of quiescent,
439: bulge-dominated Sa spiral disks, that have
440: structural (concentration indices and light profiles) or population properties (colors and spectra)
441: similar to ellipticals and lenticulars (Scodeggio et al$.$ 2002; Gavazzi et al$.$ 2002).\\
442:
443: The monotonic increase of the $(NUV-V)$ and $(NUV-H)$ colors with luminosity,
444: similar to the one observed in the
445: visible bands by Ferguson (1994) and Ferguson \& Binggeli (1994)
446: strongly suggests that both in dwarfs and giant systems the NUV 2310 \AA~ flux is
447: dominated by the same stellar population emitting at longer wavelengths.
448: The plateau and the higher dispersion
449: observed in the FUV CMRs confirm that the UV upturn is observable only
450: in the FUV GALEX band at 1530 \AA, as already remarked
451: by Dorman et al$.$ (2003) and Rich et al$.$ (2005). \\
452: %The $(FUV-NUV)$ color index seems therefore to be the ideal
453: %tracer of the underlying stellar population responsible for UV upturn in early-type galaxies.\\
454:
455: %%%QUESTO PRIMA DELLE MODIFICHE CHIESTE DALLO SMERIGLIA MARONS
456: %The observed trend between $(FUV-NUV)$
457: %and the metallicity sensitive Mg$_2$ index,
458: %reproduced by models (Bressan et al$.$ 1994; Yi et al$.$ 1998),
459: %confirms the early IUE result of Burstein et al$.$ (1988).
460: %Conversely Rich et al$.$ (2005) did not find any correlation between
461: %the color index $(FUV-r)$ and Mg$_2$ nor with the velocity dispersion $\sigma$
462: %in a large sample of SDSS early-type galaxies observed by GALEX.
463: %Their lack of correlation might derive from insufficient
464: %dynamic range in Log $\sigma$ (2.1-2.4 km s$^{-1}$) and Mg$_2$ (0.18-0.30).\\
465:
466: The mild trend between the $(FUV-NUV)$ color and the metallicity
467: sensitive Mg$_2$ index, as seen in the present dataset, is predicted
468: by models (Bressan et al$.$ 1994; Yi et al$.$ 1998). It is also in
469: qualitative agreement with the early IUE result of Burstein et al$.$
470: (1988). However, it should be noted that the Burstain dataset is
471: systematically different from the GALEX dataset: Burstain et al. used
472: a different color index, $(1550\AA-V)$, which was computed inside a
473: fixed IUE aperture. On the other hand, the trend noted here contrasts
474: with the analysis of Rich et al. (2005) who recently reported the lack
475: of a significant correlation between the $(FUV-r)$ color index and
476: Mg$_2$, and the velocity dispersion $\sigma$. They examined a large
477: sample of SDSS early-type galaxies, also observed by GALEX. We can
478: only speculate that the lack of correlation in the dataset may be the
479: result of a relatively restricted dynamic range in the variables
480: available to those authors at that time: only 2.1-2.4 km s$^{-1}$ in
481: Log $\sigma$ and 0.18-0.30 in Mg$_2$. Clearly the issue is not decided
482: and would benefit from targetted new observations.\\
483:
484:
485: The newest result of the present paper, shown in Fig. 2, addresses the
486: question raised by O'Connell (1999) concerning the dependence of the UV properties on galaxy morphology.
487: We have shown that a dichotomy exists between
488: giant and dwarf ellipticals and, to a lesser extent, between ellipticals and lenticulars.
489: The blueing of the UV color index with luminosity,
490: metallicity and velocity dispersion indicates that the UV upturn is more important
491: in massive, metal rich systems.
492:
493: The accurate morphological classification in our sample allow us to discriminate between E and SOs.
494: The higher dispersion in the $(FUV-NUV)$ vs. $L_H$ relation
495: observed for the lenticulars compared to the extremely tight one for ellipticals (see Table 1), bears
496: witness to recent, minor episodes of star formations combined with an old stellar
497: population, as determined also from kinematic and spectroscopic observations (Dressler \& Sandage 1983;
498: Neistein et al$.$ 1999; Hinz et al$.$ 2003). We have shown that the UV properties of
499: ellipticals are different than those of lenticulars, suggesting a different evolution. \\
500:
501: The opposite behavior (reddening of the UV color index with luminosity) of dwarfs with respect to giants,
502: similar to that observed for spirals, indicates that the UV spectra of
503: low luminosity objects are shaped by the contribution of young stars,
504: thus are more sensitive to the galaxy's star formation history than to the metallicity.
505: Spectroscopy was recently obtained (unpublished) for the 7 bluest dEs ($(FUV-NUV)$ $\leq$ 1.4 mag) in our sample.
506: Three out of seven show Balmer emission lines, another three strong H$\delta$ in absorption
507: (H$\delta$EW$\geq$ 5 \AA) witnessing a present or recent star formation activity.
508: This implies that the stellar population of dwarfs has
509: been formed in discrete and relatively recent episodes,
510: as observed in other nearby objects (Grebel 1999). \\
511:
512: More evidences are building up that mass drives the star formation history
513: in hot systems (Trager et al$.$ 2000; Gavazzi et al$.$ 2002; Caldwell et al$.$ 2003; Poggianti 2004)
514: as in rotating ones (Gavazzi et al$.$ 1996, 2002; Boselli et al$.$ 2001) and that
515: the stellar population of massive
516: ellipticals is on average older than that of dwarfs.
517:
518:
519: \acknowledgements
520: We thank an unknown referee for his/her criticism.
521: GALEX (Galaxy Evolution Explorer) is a NASA Small Explorer, launched in April 2003.
522: We gratefully acknowledge NASA's support for construction, operation,
523: and science analysis for the GALEX mission,
524: developed in cooperation with the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales
525: of France and the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology.
526: The authors would like to take this opportunity to thank the members
527: of the GALEX SODA Team for their valiant efforts in the timely
528: reduction of the complex observational dataset covering the full
529: expanse of the Virgo cluster.
530:
531: \references
532:
533: \reference{}Bernardi, M., et al$.$, 2002, AJ, 123, 2990
534:
535: \reference{}Bernardi, M., et al$.$, 2003, AJ, 125, 1817
536:
537: \reference{}Binggeli, B., Sandage, A. \& Tammann, G., 1985, AJ, 90, 1681
538:
539: %\reference{}Boselli, A., Tuffs, R., Gavazzi, G., Hippelein, H. \& Pierini, D., 1997, A\&AS, 121, 507
540:
541: \reference{}Boselli, A., Gavazzi, G., Donas, J. \& Scodeggio, M., 2001, AJ, 121, 753
542:
543: \reference{}Boselli, A., Gavazzi, G. \& Sanvito, G., 2003, A\&A, 402, 37
544:
545: \reference{}Boselli, A., et al$.$, 2005, ApJ, 623, L13
546:
547: \reference{}Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., \& Fagotto, F., 1994, ApJS, 94, 63
548:
549: \reference{}Burstein, D., Bertola, F., Buson, L., Faber, S. \& Lauer, T., 1988, ApJ, 328, 440
550:
551: \reference{}Caldwell, N., Rose, J.A. \& Concannon, K.D., 2003, AJ, 125, 2891
552:
553: \reference{}Deharveng, JM., Boselli, A., Donas, J., 2002, A\&A, 393, 843
554:
555: \reference{}Dorman, B., O'Connell, R. W. \& Rood, R. T., 2003, ApJ, 591, 878
556:
557: \reference{}Dressler, A. \& Sandage, A., 1983, ApJ, 265, 664
558:
559: \reference{}Ferguson, H., 1994, in "Dwarf Galaxies", ESO Conference and Workshop Proceedings, ed. G. Meylan \& P. Prugniel, p.475
560:
561: \reference{}Ferguson, H. \& Binggeli, B., 1994, A\&ARv, 6, 67
562:
563: \reference{}Gavazzi, G., Pierini, D., \& Boselli, A., 1996, A\&A, 312, 397
564:
565: \reference{}Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., Scodeggio, M., Pierini, D., Belsole, E., 1999, MNRAS,
566: 304, 595
567:
568: \reference{}Gavazzi, G., Franzetti, P., Scodeggio, M., et al$.$, 2000, A\&AS, 142, 65
569:
570: \reference{}Gavazzi, G., Zibetti, S., Boselli, A., et al., 2001, A\&A, 372, 29
571:
572: \reference{}Gavazzi, G., Bonfanti, C., Sanvito, C., Boselli, A., Scodeggio, M., 2002, ApJ,
573: 576, 135
574:
575: \reference{}Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., Donati, A., Franzetti, P. \& Scodeggio, M., 2003, A\&A, 400, 451
576:
577: %\reference{}Gavazzi, G., Zaccardo, A., Sanvito, G., Boselli, A. \& Bonfanti, C., 2004, A\&A, 417, 499
578:
579: \reference{}Gavazzi, G., Donati, A., Cucciati, O., et al., 2005, A\&A, 430, 411
580:
581: \reference{}Golev, V. \& Prugniel, P., 1998, A\&AS, 132, 255
582:
583: \reference{}Grebel, E., 1999, in "The stellar content of Local Group galaxies", proceedings of the 192 IAU,
584: 1998, PASP, Edited by P. Whitelock and R. Cannon, p.17
585:
586: \reference{}Hinz, J., Rieke, G. \& Caldwell, N., 2003, AJ, 126, 2622
587:
588: \reference{}Martin, C., et al$.$, 2005, ApJ, 619, L1
589:
590: \reference{}Morrissey, P., et al$.$, 2005, ApJ, 619, L7
591:
592: \reference{}Neistein, E., Maoz, D., Rix, H. \& Tonry, J., 1999, AJ, 117, 2666
593:
594: \reference{}O'Connell, R., 1999, ARA\&A, 37, 603
595:
596: \reference{}Poggianti, B., Bridges, T., Mobasher, B., et al, 2001, ApJ, 562, 689
597:
598: \reference{}Poggianti, B., in Clusters of Galaxies: Probes of Cosmological Structure and Galaxy
599: Evolution, from the Carnegie Observatories Centennial Symposia. Edited by J.S. Mulchaey, A.
600: Dressler, and A. Oemler, 2004, p. 246
601:
602: \reference{}Rich, M., Salim, S., Brinchmann, J., et al$.$, 2005, ApJ, 619, L107
603:
604: \reference{}Scodeggio, M., Gavazzi, G., Franzetti, P., et al.,
605: 2002, A\&A, 384, 812
606:
607: \reference{}Trager, S. C., Faber, S. M., Worthey \& G, González, J. J., 2000, AJ, 120, 165
608:
609: \reference{}Yi, S., Demarque, P., \& Oemler, A, 1998, ApJ, 492, 480
610:
611: \reference{}Yi, S., Yoon, S., Kaviraj, S., et al$.$, 2005, ApJ, 619, L111
612:
613: \reference{}Van Zee, L., Skillman, E., Haynes, M., 2004, AJ, 128, 121
614:
615: \reference{}Whitmore, B., Gilmore, D. \& Jones, C., 1993, ApJ, 407, 489
616:
617: \reference{}Zibetti, S., Gavazzi, G., Scodeggio, M., Franzetti, P., Boselli, A., 2004, ApJ, 579, 261
618:
619: %\clearpage
620:
621:
622: \end{document}
623:
624: The UV statistical properties of dEs are still unknown since the only observed object is M32 (REF).
625: Although giant ellipticals and S0 have been observed in UV since the 80s, no attention has been ever
626: given to comparison of their UV properties (REF).
627: