1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand\gsim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
4:
5: %\usepackage[english]{babel}
6:
7:
8: \shorttitle{Galaxy Luminosity Profiles}
9: \shortauthors{Coenda et al.}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{Photometric observations of Southern Abell Cluster Redshifts Survey Clusters: Structure of galaxies in the inner region of clusters of galaxies}
14:
15:
16: \author{
17: Valeria Coenda\altaffilmark{1},
18: Hernan Muriel\altaffilmark{1},
19: Carlos Jos\'e Donzelli\altaffilmark{1}}
20: \affil{Grupo de Investigaciones en Astronom\'\i a Te\'orica y Experimental,
21: IATE, Observatorio Astron\'omico, Universidad Nacional de
22: C\'ordoba, Laprida 854, X5000BGR, C\'ordoba, Argentina.}
23: \email{vcoenda@oac.uncor.edu, hernan@oac.uncor.edu, charly@oac.uncor.edu}
24: \author{Hernan Quintana,
25: Leopoldo Infante}
26: \affil{Departamento de Astronom\'\i a y Astrof\'\i sica,
27: Pontificia Universidad Cat\'olica, Vicu\~na Mackenna 4860, Casilla 306
28: Santiago 22, Chile.}
29: \email{hquintana@astro.puc.cl, linfante@astro.puc.cl}
30: \and
31: \author{Diego Garc\'{\i}a Lambas\altaffilmark{1}}
32: \affil{Grupo de Investigaciones en Astronom\'\i a Te\'orica y Experimental,
33: IATE, Observatorio Astron\'omico, Universidad Nacional de
34: C\'ordoba, Laprida 854, X5000BGR, C\'ordoba, Argentina.}
35: \email{dgl@oac.uncor.edu}
36: \altaffiltext{1}
37: {Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient\'\i ficas y T\'ecnicas (CONICET),
38: Avenida Rivadavia 1917, C1033AAJ, Buenos Aires, Argentina.}
39:
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42: We analyze photometric properties of 1384 cluster galaxies
43: as a function of the normalized distance to cluster center.
44: These galaxies were selected
45: in the central region ($r/r_{200} \leq$ 0.8) of 14 southern Abell clusters chosen
46: from the Southern Abell Cluster Redshifts Survey (SARS).
47: For 507 of these galaxies we also obtained their luminosity profiles.
48: We have studied the morphology-clustercentric distance relation
49: on the basis of the shape parameter $n$ of the S\'ersic's law.
50: We also have analyzed the presence of a possible segregation in magnitude for
51: both, the galaxy total luminosity and that of their components (i.e. the bulge and
52: the disk).
53:
54: Results show a marginal ($2\sigma$ level) decrease of the total luminosity as a
55: function of normalized radius. However, when bulges are analyzed separately, a
56: significant luminosity segregation is found ($3\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ for
57: galaxies in projection and member galaxies respectively). The fraction of
58: bulges brighter than $M_B \leq -22$ is three times larger in the core of clusters
59: than in the outer region. Our analysis of the disk component suggests that disks are,
60: on average, less luminous in the cluster core than at $r/r_{200} \sim 0.8$.
61: In addition, we found that the magnitude-size relation as a function of
62: $r/r_{200}$ indicates (at $2\sigma$ level) that disks are smaller and centrally
63: brighter in the core
64: of clusters. However, the Kormendy relation (the bulge magnitude-size relation)
65: appears to be independent of environment.
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68:
69: \keywords{galaxies: clusters: general --- surveys}
70:
71:
72: %------------------------------------------------------------
73:
74: \section{Introduction}
75:
76: It is well known that environment affects galaxy properties as:
77: morphology, luminosity, color, star formation rate,
78: gas content and structure of the subsystems. Different mechanisms have been
79: proposed to explain how these properties can be affected by the environment.
80: A large number of galaxies can
81: be well represented by two major components, the bulge and the disk.
82: These two components can be affected in many ways when the galaxy is
83: moving into the environment of a rich cluster. Moore et al.(1998) follow
84: the evolution of disks galaxies in a rich cluster (galaxy harassment)
85: and find that the result of close encounters is a transformation from
86: disks to spheroids. Fujita and Nagashima (1999) suggested that ram pressure
87: stripping (Gunn and Gott 1972, Abadi et al. 1999) increases the bulge to
88: disk luminosity ratio $B/D$ of normal spiral galaxies due to the
89: suppression of the star formation and hence favoring the transformation
90: into earlier Hubble types.
91:
92: Luminosity segregation was detected
93: by Rood \& Turnrose (1968), Quintana (1979), Capelato et al. (1980), Yepes et al. (1991)
94: and Kashikawa et al. (1998). Moreover, this effect was detected when
95: galaxies are considered through their clustercentric distances or their
96: velocity dispersions (most luminous galaxies have smaller velocity
97: dispersion) (Rood et al. 1972, Biviano et al. 1992).
98: However, luminosity segregation have also found opponents like
99: Noonan (1961), Bahcall (1973) and Sarazin (1980), who suggested that
100: evidences for luminosity segregation are spurious, and mostly due to
101: poor background subtraction. However, his optimized fitting procedure was
102: applied to the Coma cluster data with little background data.
103:
104:
105: In this paper we analyze the relations between galaxy structure and photometric
106: parameters vs. cluster's environment. Dom\'{\i}nguez et al. (2001) found
107: that parameters defined as a function of the distance to the cluster centre
108: are the most appropriated to represent the morphological segregation of
109: galaxies in the inner relaxed region of nearby clusters. Since the present
110: work concentrates on that region of clusters ($r<r/r_{200}$), we analyze the
111: galaxy properties as a function of the clustercentric distance normalized to
112: $r_{200}$. Redshift
113: confirmed members and galaxies seen in projection are analyzed separately.
114: The goal of this paper is to quantify the environment dependence of
115: the structural and photometric properties of galaxies in clusters.
116: Our sample consists
117: of 507 galaxies in 14 southern Abell clusters of the SARS sample
118: (Way et al. 2005, Hearafter Paper I). The structural and photometric parameters were
119: obtained in Coenda et al. (2005, Hereafter Paper III). The paper is structured as
120: follows: observations and photometric analysis are described in section
121: \ref{photo}. In section \ref{res} we derive and analyze our results,
122: and the conclusions are given in section \ref{concl}.
123:
124:
125:
126: %-----------------------------------------------------------
127:
128: \section{Sample, observations and luminosity profiles}\label{photo}
129:
130: Our sample consists of Cousins \textit{R} CCD images of 14 Abell clusters with
131: $cz<40000kms^{-1}$ corresponding to the Southern Abell Clusters Redshifts
132: Survey (SARS, Paper I). The images were taken with the Swope 1.0 m
133: telescope at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile. The pixel scale was 0.61$\arcsec$
134: and the field covers a 20.8$\arcmin$ square area. The seeing conditions were very similar for the whole sample of clusters. The mean seeing was 2.00 $\arcsec$ and the dispersion 0.18. Therefore, we believe that our sample is free of any effect due to variations in the seeing conditions. Additional details on the observations and data reduction are given in Paper III. Table \ref{table1} lists
135: the cluster sample, their coordinates, velocity dispersions and radial
136: velocities taken from Muriel et al. (2002, Hereafter Paper II). From the listed clusters we have finally analyzed a total of 1384 galaxies (CS1 sample) of which 345 have known redshifts (CS2 sample) (Paper I). Of the 345 with measured redshifts, 313 are cluster members (CS3 sample). Of the 1384 galaxies, 507 have luminosity profiles determined (CS4 sample) and 232 of these galaxies have measured redshifts (CS5 sample), and of these 232, 207 are cluster members (CS6 sample). Luminosity profiles were obtained using the $ellipse$
137: routine within STSDAS (Jedrzejewski, 1987) and were fitted
138: using the standard B + D law:
139: \begin{equation} \label{dV+exp}
140: I(r)=I_{e}exp\Big[-7.688\Big[\Big(\frac{r}r_{e}\Big)^{1/4}-1\Big]\Big]+I_{0}exp\Big(-\frac{r}r_{0}\Big)
141: \end{equation}
142: The first term corresponds to the bulge component, being $I_{e}$ the effective intensity and $r_e$ the effective radius defined as the radius that encloses half of the total luminosity of the bulge. The second term corresponds to the
143: disk component, being $I_{0}$ the central intensity and $r_{0}$ the length scale.
144: In addition, we have also used the S\'ersic law (S\'ersic 1968)
145: to fit the galaxy luminosity profiles:
146: \begin{equation} \label{sersic}
147: I(r)=I_{s}exp\Big(-\Big(\frac{r}r_{s}\Big)^n\Big)
148: \end{equation}
149: In this equation $I_{s}$ is the central intensity and $r_{s}$ the length scale. The exponent $n$ is a shape parameter, where $n=0.25$ correspond to the de Vaucoulueurs law (de Vaucouleurs 1948) and $n=1$ correspond to the exponential law (Freeman 1970). Further details on the fitting procedure and error
150: sources can also be seen on Paper III.
151:
152:
153: %------------------------------------------------------------
154: \section{Results and Discussion}\label{res}
155:
156: \subsection{Selection effects}\label{effects}
157:
158: In this work we aimed to determine the presence of possible correlations
159: between galaxy photometric parameters and cluster global properties.
160: Particularly, we focused our study on the morphological and magnitude
161: segregation through radial correlations. This is justified from the expetations that different
162: physical processes are likely to operate at different radii, thus looking for
163: trends with radius are clearly appropriate if one is trying to understand why we see
164: luminosity and morphological segregations in clusters. In order to avoid systematic
165: effects we have analyzed the
166: sample completeness as well as projection and selection effects. To study the
167: magnitude segregation we must be sure that our sample is free of any radial bias
168: in the galaxy selection. Since SARS does not represent a magnitude complete
169: sample (see Paper I for a more detailed discussion) we have investigated
170: the possible presence of a radial bias between the SARS target selection and
171: apparent magnitude of the galaxies. We analyzed the radial distribution of
172: the quotient between the number of galaxies with known redshifts and the
173: total number of galaxies in a total-magnitude-complete sample (CS1 sample)
174: (limited at $m_t=18.5$). The analysis was done for three different intervals
175: of the total apparent magnitude $m_{t}$ (bulge + disk). As can be appreciated
176: in Figure \ref{fig1} (a) the fraction of bright galaxies with measured redshift
177: present a slight increment towards the central inner region of clusters.
178: In order to avoid any possible bias in our analysis, we have randomly selected a new
179: sample that is free of this bias. We proceeded as follow: randomly selected galaxies with known redshifts were discarded until the fraction of galaxies with redshift as a function of $r$ is nearly constant. This procedure was applied on each of the selected magnitude intervals. Figure \ref{fig1} (b) shows the resulting galaxy distributions. As a consequence of this procedure we have a new sample with 345 galaxies with measured redshifts (CSC1 sample).
180:
181: Once the the sample is free of any bias in the redshift selection function,
182: the redshift information can be used to quantify the fraction of galaxies
183: that are cluster members as a function of the normalized radius and apparent magnitude. This information will be used to correct for projection
184: effect the sample of galaxies without redshit estimates. In order to quantify
185: this projection effect, and using the sample of galaxies free of the redshift
186: selection bias (CSC1 sample), we computed the ratio between
187: the number of redshift-confirmed members and the total number of galaxies with
188: known redshift as a function of a normalized radius. This ratio was computed for both, the total sample and for different
189: intervals of total apparent magnitude (Figures \ref{fig2} (a) and \ref{fig2}
190: (b) respectively). Each galaxy without redshift is weighted depending on the clustercentric distances and the total apparent magnitude.
191:
192: The previous analysis was carried out to study the total luminosity segregation.
193: On the other hand, to study the bulge-disk luminosity segregation
194: we performed a similar analysis considering a subsample of galaxies with
195: luminosity profiles in which profile decomposition was possible.
196:
197: In order to correct for the magnitude limit, we first determined the
198: luminosity function of the nearest cluster for both all galaxies
199: in projection and for those redshifts-confirmed member galaxies. The obtained
200: luminosity functions were then fitted with the Schechter's function.
201: These fittings were used to correct the observed galaxy
202: counts according to Whitmore et al. 1993. The same procedure was applied to
203: the analysis of the bulge and the disk systems.
204:
205: Since we were also interested in the study of the morphological segregation,
206: we have analyzed both completeness and projection effects for those galaxies
207: where we could trace out the luminosity profile.
208: This analysis is similar to the others mentioned above.
209: However, in this case we have considered different intervals of the S\'ersic profile parameter $n$.
210:
211: %-----------------------------------------------------------
212: \subsection{Morphological Segregation}
213:
214: We have adopted for our analysis the cluster characteristic
215: radius, $r_{200}$. This radius is
216: defined as the radius where the mean inner density is $200\overline{\rho}(z)$.
217: Carlberg et al. (1997) derive a correlation
218: between $r_{200}$ and the cluster mean velocity dispersion ($\sigma$):
219: \begin{equation}
220: r_{200}=\frac{\sqrt{3}\sigma}{10H(z)}
221: \end{equation}
222: The values of $\sigma$ used in this work are those quoted in Paper II and the corresponding values of $r_{200}$ can be found in its Table 1.
223:
224: As it was pointed out in the introduction, the morphology-environment relation
225: of galaxies in clusters has been extensively studied (Dressler 1980, Witmore
226: et al. 1993, Dominguez et al. 2001). However, in this work we wanted to analyze
227: the mentioned relation in an alternative way using the $n$ parameter which has
228: two major advantages, it is a continuous index and it can be easily reproduced.
229: In order to study the possibility of $n$ being a rough morphology indicator we have
230: explored the $n$ values fitted to those galaxies with different types of
231: luminosity profiles. In Fig. \ref{fig3} we have plotted the $n$ distribution
232: for those galaxies having pure de Vaucouleur profiles, B + D profiles and pure
233: exponential profiles. The fourth group includes those galaxies for which we
234: could not fit any of the previous functions. It is clearly observed that those
235: galaxies with r$^{1/4}$ luminosity profiles have values of $n$ $<$ 0.4. On the
236: other hand, those galaxies with typical B + D profiles show 0.4 $<$ $n$ $<$
237: 0.7, while disk galaxies show 0.7 $<$ $n$ $<$ 1.2. Finally, we have observed
238: that those galaxies with 1.2 $<$ $n$ are mostly dwarf ellipticals.
239:
240: In figure \ref{fig4} we can observe the correlation between $n$ and $r/r_{200}$. The left panel corresponds to all galaxies in the sample corrected for projection effects whereas the results shown in the right panel are computed for redshift-confirmed members and corrected for completeness as it was explained in section \ref{effects}. The comparison between the results shown in both panels gives information about the bias introduced by projection effects. As expected, we found that galaxies with low values of $n$, which roughly correspond to early type galaxies, dominate the central cluster region. We also found that the fraction of early type galaxies increases when the clustercentric distance decreases. Although the behavior in the mentioned panels are similar, the signal is stronger when redshift-confirmed members are considered. Error bars in this and following figures were estimated using the boot-strap re-sampling technique.
241:
242: %------------------------------------------------------------
243:
244: \subsection{Segregation in Magnitude}
245: We are interested in studying a possible magnitude segregation in clusters.
246: Solanes et al. (1989) used the mean magnitude to test possible dependencies of
247: magnitudes as a function of the projected local density. Probably, one of the best
248: options is the computation of the luminosity function at different clustercentric
249: radii or densities. Nevertheless, this option requires a huge amount of galaxies.
250: An alternative option consists in the computation of the fraction of galaxies
251: brighter than a certain value as a function of the clustercentric radius.
252:
253: In order to evaluate a possible segregation in magnitude, we have considered
254: three possible parameters: the total absolute magnitude, the bulge magnitude
255: and the disk magnitude. Figure \ref{fig5} plots the fraction of galaxies with
256: $M_{t}\le-21$ as a function of $r/r_{200}$, using the CS1 sample and CS3 sample.
257: The threshold magnitude was selected in order to have two sub-samples of similar size.
258: It can be observed that galaxy
259: total luminosity marginally (two sigma level)decreases as a function of $r/r_{200}$ for
260: redshift-confirmed members of the nearest seven clusters (panel (b)).
261: On the other hand, panel (a) shows all galaxies of the previous seven clusters
262: (solid circles)
263: and all cluster galaxies (open circles) respectively. In this case, both
264: samples were
265: corrected for projection effects. However, we can not see a clear correlation
266: between
267: $M_{t}$ and $r/r_{200}$.
268:
269: The study of the bulge sub-system is particularly important since it is a
270: fundamental component of a high fraction of galaxies and seems to have some
271: properties that are independent of the morphological type of the host galaxy.
272: Figure \ref{fig6} shows the fraction of galaxies with $M_{B}\le-22$ versus the
273: clustercentric distance, panels (a) and (b). We can see that bulge luminosity
274: decreases as of $r/r_{200}$ increases in all cases.
275: The sample (CS4 sample and CS6 sample) used in this analysis is complete up to $m_t=18.5$ and therefore
276: it is not necesary complete in bulge magnitude. For this reason, we repeated
277: the
278: previus analysis selecting a bulge-magnitude-complete subsample (CS7 sample).
279: Assuming an euclidian geometry and an
280: uniform space distribution, the function $N_{dot}*10^{0.6m_b}$ provides a good estimate
281: of the magnitude completeness. We found that our bulge sample is approximately complete up
282: to $m_b=16.5$. The results can be seeing in panels (c) and (d) of Fig.
283: \ref{fig6}. Analogously, we also
284: found a clear correlation between bulge luminosity and $r/r_{200}$.
285: In these last two cases, we have considered only two bins for statistical
286: reasons.
287:
288: As it was discussed in the introduction, disks can be seriously affected by
289: several processes when they move close to the center of massive clusters of
290: galaxies. Figure \ref{fig7} shows, for the same sample of Fig.\ref{fig6},
291: the fraction of galaxies with $M_{D}\le-20.5$ as a function of $r/r_{200}$. It can be observed
292: a clear dependence of $M_{D}$ with the clustercentric distance (disks become
293: brighter as the clustercentric distance increases). It should be noted that
294: the effect can not be clearly appreciated when all clusters in
295: projection are considered (open circles in panel b).
296:
297: As it was detailed in Paper III our sample galaxies were selected under a strong restriction: only those galaxies with apparent radius greater than 3-4 times the FWHM were chosen. This selection avoid any bias
298: in the accuracy of measuring bulge and/or disk luminosities. Several tests described in Paper III show that
299: the main error source for the photometric parameters is background noise and an eventually dependence on the bulge and/or disk luminosity should not be noticeable in terms of the calculated errors.
300:
301:
302: %------------------------------------------------------------
303: \subsection{Scaling Relations}
304: In paper III, we have studied several scaling relations between photometric and
305: structural parameters. In order to test whether these relations depend on the
306: cluster environment, we have correlated their behavior as a function of the
307: over-density radius. We have studied the magnitude-size relation, which is
308: closely related to the Kormendy relation (Kormendy 1977) for bulge systems.
309: Figure \ref{fig8} shows the $M_B-log(r_e)$ (panel a) relation together with
310: the
311: $M_D-log(r_0)$ relation (panel b) for member galaxies. We have separately
312: analyzed
313: this scaling relations for those galaxies with $r/r_{200}<0.3$ (filled circles)
314: and for those with $r/r_{200}\geq0.3$ (open circles). The best fitting
315: parameters are shown in the corresponding panels, the slopes and zero points
316: correspond to the bisector fit as described in Paper III. No statistically significant difference between bulges in the inner and in the outskirts part of the clusters was found.
317:
318: On the other hand, our results indicate a marginal dependency (two $\sigma$ level) of the $M_D-log(r_0)$ relation on environment. We can observe from panel (b) of Fig. 8 that for low values of $log(r_0)$ disks located in the inner cluster regions are brighter than those at intermediate distances from the cluster center. This result implies that the central intensity of disks $I_0$ would be greater for
319: galaxies located in the inner cluster region. Nevertheless, more data are required in order to confirm this result.
320:
321: %------------------------------------------------------------
322: \section{Conclusions}\label{concl}
323:
324: We have analyzed the correlation between galaxy photometric parameters
325: and the normalized clustercentric radius $r/r_{200}$ for 507 galaxies
326: in the central region of 14 Abell cluster. All the analysis performed
327: in this work were applied to two different samples: i) all galaxies in
328: projection, for which we have taken into account the standard corrections, and ii) redshift
329: confirmed members corrected by completeness.
330:
331: Based on the S\'ersic index $n$ we analyzed the morphological-$r/r_{200}$
332: relation. We found that the $n$ parameter is a good alternative to
333: measure the morphological segregation. The use of $n$ has the advantage
334: that it is a continuous parameter that can be estimated in a more reproducible
335: procedure.
336:
337: In order to test for a possible luminosity segregation, we analyzed the
338: correlation between the fraction of galaxies with $M_{t}\le-21$ and
339: $r/r_{200}$. Our results show a marginal (two sigma level) decrease of the
340: total luminosity as the normalized radius increases. It should be noted that
341: this effect is only present when redshift-confirmed members are considered.
342: The same analysis was repeated for bulge and disk sub-systems.
343: Our results indicate a segregation in bulge-magnitude when both
344: confirmed members galaxies ($2\sigma$ level) and projected galaxies
345: ($3\sigma$ level) are used.
346: We found that the fraction of bulges brighter than $M_{t}\le-22$ is
347: approximately three times larger in the inner cluster region than in the
348: outer cluster region. This analysis was performed for a total-magnitude-complete
349: sample and for a bulge-magnitude-complete sub-sample. In both cases, our results are
350: consistent with a segregation in the bulge luminosity.
351:
352: On the other hand, the absolute magnitude of disks presents a dependence on
353: $r/r_{200}$ in
354: the sense that disks tend to have on average lower luminosities as they are
355: closer to the core of the parent cluster of galaxies. It should be noted that
356: this effect is only present when redshift-confirmed members are considered.
357:
358: If disk galaxies are selected in projection, the effect is only statistically
359: significant for the nearest clusters.
360: Disk luminosity segregation support the idea that disks are
361: tidally affected by the cluster potential or by high speed encounters with
362: other cluster member galaxies. However, there are other phenomena that could affect
363: star formation in galaxy disks such as ram pressure, gas evaporation, or lack of gas
364: accretion from the intra-cluster medium. All these mechanisms can also be responsible
365: for the observed disk luminosity segregation.
366:
367: We have analyzed the scaling relations for bulges and disks as a function of
368: $r/r_{200}$. We did not find any statistically significant dependence of
369: the $M_B-log(r_e)$ relation with the clustercentric distance. Our results
370: suggest that the physical conditions responsible for the Kormendy relation
371: are sufficiently robust to support the extreme conditions found in the core of the
372: clusters of galaxies. On the other hand, the $M_D-log(r_0)$ relation is consistent with a marginal
373: dependency (two sigma level) of this relation as a function of the
374: normalized radius. The correlation between these two parameters appears
375: weaker in the cluster core when compared with
376: larger clustercentric distances. This result indicates that disks of galaxies
377: in the central region of clusters are more compact and have a brighter
378: central luminosity. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that, on average, disks are
379: less luminous in the central region than in the outskirts. In summary, disks in the
380: core of clusters are less luminous, more compact and present a higher central surface
381: brightness. The simulations performed by Moore et al. (1999) indicate that galaxy
382: harassment is particularly strong for low surface brightness galaxies, which
383: suggests that disks that can survive in the cluster core are
384: the most compact ones, a scenario that is consistent with our results.
385:
386: Finally, it is important to notice that for most of the analysis made in this work
387: the results clearly differ depending on whether redshift-confirmed members or
388: galaxies in projection are considered. This indicates the importance of using
389: redshift confirmed members.
390:
391:
392: %------------------------------------------------------------
393:
394: \section{Acknowledgments}
395: This work was partially supported by the Consejo de Investigaciones
396: Cient\'{\i}ficas y T\'ecnicas de la Rep\'ublica Argentina, CONICET; SeCyT,
397: UNC, Agencia Nacional de Promoci\'on Cient\'{\i}fica and Agencia C\'ordoba
398: Ciencia, Argentina. L. Infante anf H. Quintana acknowledge partial support
399: from the Centro de Astrof\'{\i}sica FONDAP/CONICYT program.
400:
401: %------------------------------------------------------------
402:
403: \newpage
404:
405: \begin{thebibliography}{}
406:
407: \bibitem[Abadi et al.(1999)]{1999MNRAS.308..947A} Abadi, M.~G., Moore, B.,
408: \& Bower, R.~G.\ 1999, \mnras, 308, 947
409: \bibitem[Bahcall(1973)]{1973ApJ...183..783B} Bahcall, N.~A.\ 1973, \apj,
410: 183, 783
411: \bibitem[Biviano et al.(1992)]{1992ApJ...396...35B} Biviano, A., Girardi,
412: M., Giuricin, G., Mardirossian, F., \& Mezzetti, M.\ 1992, \apj, 396, 35
413: \bibitem[Capelato et al.(1980)]{1980ApJ...241..521C} Capelato, H.~V.,
414: Gerbal, D., Salvador-Sole, E., Mathez, G., Mazure, A., \& Sol, H.\ 1980,
415: \apj, 241, 521
416: \bibitem[Carlberg et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...478..462C} Carlberg, R.~G., Yee,
417: H.~K.~C., \& Ellingson, E.\ 1997, \apj, 478, 462
418: \bibitem[Coenda et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....129.1237C} Coenda, V., Donzelli,
419: C.~J., Muriel, H., Quintana, H., Infante, L., \& Lambas, D.~G.\ 2005, \aj,
420: 129, 1237, Paper III
421: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs(1948)]{1948AnAp...11..247D} de Vaucouleurs, G.\
422: 1948, Annales d'Astrophysique, 11, 247
423: \bibitem[Dom{\'{\i}}nguez et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....121.1266D}
424: Dom{\'{\i}}nguez, M., Muriel, H., \& Lambas, D.~G.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 1266
425: \bibitem[Dressler(1980)]{1980ApJ...236..351D} Dressler, A.\ 1980, \apj,
426: 236, 351
427: \bibitem[Freeman(1970)]{1970ApJ...160..811F} Freeman, K.~C.\ 1970, \apj,
428: 160, 811
429: \bibitem[Fujita \& Nagashima(1999)]{1999ApJ...516..619F} Fujita, Y., \&
430: Nagashima, M.\ 1999, \apj, 516, 619
431: \bibitem[Gunn \& Gott(1972)]{1972ApJ...176....1G} Gunn, J.~E., \& Gott,
432: J.~R.~I.\ 1972, \apj, 176, 1
433: \bibitem[Jedrzejewski(1987)]{1987MNRAS.226..747J} Jedrzejewski, R.~I.\
434: 1987, \mnras, 226, 747
435: \bibitem[Kashikawa et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...500..750K} Kashikawa, N.,
436: Sekiguchi, M., Doi, M., Komiyama, Y., Okamura, S., Shimasaku, K., Yagi, M.,
437: \& Yasuda, N.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 750
438: \bibitem[Kormendy(1977)]{1977ApJ...218..333K} Kormendy, J.\ 1977, \apj,
439: 218, 333
440: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...495..139M} Moore, B., Lake, G., \&
441: Katz, N.\ 1998, \apj, 495, 139
442: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{1999MNRAS.304..465M} Moore, B., Lake, G.,
443: Quinn, T., \& Stadel, J.\ 1999, \mnras, 304, 465
444: \bibitem[Muriel et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....124.1934M} Muriel, H., Quintana,
445: H., Infante, L., Lambas, D.~G., \& Way, M.~J.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1934, Paper II
446: \bibitem[Noonan(1961)]{1961PASP...73..212N} Noonan, T.\ 1961, \pasp, 73,
447: 212
448: \bibitem[Quintana(1979)]{1979AJ.....84...15Q} Quintana, H.\ 1979, \aj, 84,
449: 15
450: \bibitem[Rood \& Turnrose(1968)]{1968ApJ...152.1057R} Rood, H.~J., \&
451: Turnrose, B.~E.\ 1968, \apj, 152, 1057
452: \bibitem[Rood et al.(1972)]{1972ApJ...175..627R} Rood, H.~J., Page, T.~L.,
453: Kintner, E.~C., \& King, I.~R.\ 1972, \apj, 175, 627
454: \bibitem[Sarazin(1980)]{1980ApJ...236...75S} Sarazin, C.~L.\ 1980, \apj,
455: 236, 75
456: \bibitem[Sersic(1968)]{1968adga.book.....S} S\'ersic, J.~L.\ 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes, Observatorio Astron\'omico de C\'ordoba
457: \bibitem[Solanes et al.(1989)]{1989AJ.....98..798S} Solanes, J.~M.,
458: Salvador-Sole, E., \& Sanroma, M.\ 1989, \aj, 98, 798
459: \bibitem[]{490} Way, M., Quintana, H., Infante, L., Lambas, D. G., Muriel, H. 2005. AJ accepted, Paper I
460: \bibitem[Whitmore et al.(1993)]{1993ApJ...407..489W} Whitmore, B.~C.,
461: Gilmore, D.~M., \& Jones, C.\ 1993, \apj, 407, 489
462: \bibitem[Yepes et al.(1991)]{1991ApJ...373..336Y} Yepes, G.,
463: Dominguez-Tenreiro, R., \& del Pozo-Sanz, R.\ 1991, \apj, 373, 336
464:
465:
466: \end{thebibliography}
467:
468: %--------------------------------------------------------------
469:
470: \clearpage
471:
472: \begin{figure}
473: \begin{center}
474: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f1.ps}
475: \caption{(a) Radial distribution of the ratio between the number
476: of galaxies with known redshifts and the total number of galaxies with a limit magnitude at $m_t=18.5$, on each of the selected magnitude intervals. (b) Same as (a) but bias corrected.}
477: \label{fig1}
478: \end{center}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481: \begin{figure}
482: \begin{center}
483: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f2.ps}
484: \caption{Ratio between the number of redshift-confirmed members and the total number of galaxies with known redshifts as a function of $r/r_{200}$ (a) for the total sample and (b) for different magnitude interval.}
485: \label{fig2}
486: \end{center}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489: \begin{figure}
490: \begin{center}
491: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f3.ps}
492: \caption{Distribution of the $n$ parameter for galaxies having pure de Vaucouleurs profiles, B + D profiles, pure exponential profiles, and galaxies for which we could not fit any of the previous functions.}
493: \label{fig3}
494: \end{center}
495: \end{figure}
496:
497: \begin{figure}
498: \begin{center}
499: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f4.ps}
500: \caption{Correlation between the average $n$ parameter and normalized clustercentric distance for the sample galaxies, projetion corrected (left panel) and confirmed cluster members (right panel). The small box in the upper corner displays the fraction of galaxies with $n\le0.4$ as function of $r/r_{200}$.}
501: \label{fig4}
502: \end{center}
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: \begin{figure}
506: \begin{center}
507: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f5.ps}
508: \caption{Fraction of galaxies with $M_t\le-21$ as function of $r/r_{200}$. (a) for all galaxies of the seven nearest clusters (solid circles) and total sample galaxies (open circles) both corrected for projection effects. (b) for redshift-confirmed members of the seven nearest clusters.}
509: \label{fig5}
510: \end{center}
511: \end{figure}
512:
513: \begin{figure}
514: \begin{center}
515: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f6.ps}
516: \caption{Panels (a) and (b) show the fraction of galaxies with $M_B\le-22$ as function of $r/r_{200}$ for the same sample galaxies of Fig. \ref{fig5}. Panels (c) and (d) show the fraction of galaxies with $M_B\le-22$ as function of $r/r_{200}$ but in this case limited to a bulge-magnitude-complete subsamples.}
517: \label{fig6}
518: \end{center}
519: \end{figure}
520:
521:
522: \begin{figure}
523: \begin{center}
524: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f7.ps}
525: \caption{Fraction of galaxies with $M_D\le-20.5$ as function of $r/r_{200}$. Panels (a) and (b) correspond to the same cases of Fig. \ref{fig5}.}
526: \label{fig7}
527: \end{center}
528: \end{figure}
529:
530:
531:
532: \begin{figure}
533: \begin{center}
534: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f8.ps}
535: \caption{$M_B-log(r_e)$ (a) and $M_D-log(r_0)$ (b) relation. In both cases, galaxies with $r/r_{200}<0.3$ are represented with filled circles and the bisector fit is shown with a solid line. Galaxies with $r/r_{200}\geq0.3$ are plotted with open circles and the bisector fit is shown with a dashed line.}
536: \label{fig8}
537: \end{center}
538: \end{figure}
539:
540:
541:
542:
543: \clearpage
544:
545: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.6}
546:
547: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccll}
548: \tablecaption{Observed clusters\label{table1}}
549: \tablewidth{0pc}
550: \tablehead{
551: \colhead{Abell Number} &
552: \colhead{$\alpha_{J2000}$} &
553: \colhead{$\delta_{J2000}$} &
554: \colhead{$\sigma$}&
555: \colhead{$v_r$}\\
556: &
557: \colhead{$^h\;\; ^m\;\;\; ^s\;\;\,$} &
558: \colhead{$\degr\;\;\; \arcmin\;\;\;\arcsec\;$} &
559: \colhead{[$kms^{-1}$]} &
560: \colhead{[$kms^{-1}$]}
561: }
562: \startdata
563: 118 & 00 55 43.9 & $-$26 24 46 & 669 $\pm$ 127 & 34421 $\pm$ 159 \\
564: 2734 & 00 11 20.1 & $-$28 52 52 & 784 $\pm$ 124 & 18502 $\pm$ 100 \\
565: 2799 & 00 35 3.00 & $-$39 25 29 & 563 $\pm$ 62 & 19454 $\pm$ 127 \\
566: 2800 & 00 37 58.7 & $-$25 05 30 & 335 $\pm$ 64 & 18943 $\pm$ 47 \\
567: 2854 & 01 00 48.7 & $-$50 31 51 & 308 $\pm$ 44 & 18480 $\pm$ 51 \\
568: 2923 & 01 32 18.0 & $-$31 05 36 & 670 $\pm$ 76 & 21420 $\pm$ 135 \\
569: 2933 & 01 40 41.2 & $-$54 33 26 & 759 $\pm$ 72 & 27709 $\pm$ 105\\
570: 3764 & 21 26 1.00 & $-$34 47 39 & 795 $\pm$ 123 & 22714 $\pm$ 110 \\
571: 3809 & 21 49 51.7 & $-$43 52 55 & 560 $\pm$ 67 & 18785 $\pm$ 81 \\
572: 3864 & 22 30 14.4 & $-$52 28 38 & 847 $\pm$ 188 & 30699 $\pm$ 161 \\
573: 3915 & 22 47 37.0 & $-$52 03 09 & 815 $\pm$ 102 & 28925 $\pm$ 105 \\
574: 3921 & 22 49 38.6 & $-$64 23 15 & 788 $\pm$ 111 & 27855 $\pm$ 105 \\
575: 4010 & 23 31 10.3 & $-$36 30 26 & 743 $\pm$ 140 & 28766 $\pm$ 149 \\
576: 4067 & 23 58 48.3 & $-$60 38 39 & 738 $\pm$ 442 & 29643 $\pm$ 181 \\
577: \enddata
578: \end{deluxetable}
579:
580:
581: \end{document}
582:
583: