1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: \received{2005 January 3}
3: \begin{document}
4: %\input psfig.sty
5: %\input epsf.tex
6:
7: \title{Star Formation Histories of Nearby Elliptical Galaxies. II.
8: Merger Remnant Sample}
9: \author{Justin H.\ Howell}
10: \affil{UCO/Lick Observatory, Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics,\\
11: University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA\\
12: \tt{jhhowell@ucolick.org}\footnote{now at the Infrared Processing and
13: Analysis Center, Mail Stop 100-22, California Institute of Technology, Jet
14: Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91125; jhhowell@ipac.caltech.edu}}
15:
16: %\author{Robert Proctor}
17: %\affil{Centre for Astrophysics \& Supercomputing, Swinburne University,
18: %Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia}
19: %\email{rproctor@astro.swin.edu.au}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22:
23: This work presents high $S/N$ spectroscopic observations of a
24: sample of six suspected merger remnants, selected primarily on the basis of
25: H{\sc i} tidal debris detections. Single stellar population analysis of these
26: galaxies indicates that their ages, metallicities, and $\alpha$-enhancement
27: ratios are consistent with those of a representative sample of nearby
28: elliptical galaxies. The expected stellar population of a recent merger
29: remnant, young age combined with low [$\alpha$/Fe], is not seen in any
30: H{\sc i}-selected galaxy. However, one galaxy (NGC~2534), is found to
31: deviate from the $Z$-plane in the sense expected for a merger remnant.
32: Another galaxy (NGC~7332), selected by other criteria, best matches the
33: merger remnant expectations.
34:
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD --- galaxies: abundances ---
38: galaxies: stellar content --- galaxies: formation --- galaxies: evolution
39: --- galaxies: interactions --- galaxies: general}
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42:
43: The formation mechanisms for early-type galaxies have been the subject
44: of intense scrutiny over the past several decades. The early dynamical
45: simulations of \citet{ch2toomre72} showed that merger events between two
46: spiral galaxies can result in an elliptical galaxy as the merger remnant.
47: This provides a striking alternative to the classical monolithic collapse
48: picture of elliptical galaxy formation \citep[e.~g.][]{larson}, in which
49: the entire galaxy forms in a single star-formation event at high redshift.
50: Although mergers in progress are obvious, merger remnants evolving into
51: elliptical galaxies are more difficult to identify. Such objects populate
52: the ``King gap'' \citep{king} separating interacting galaxies from the
53: quiescent elliptical remnant galaxy they are proposed to become.
54: For purposes of this study, major mergers are defined as those
55: encounters in which the mass ratio is large enough that any stellar disks
56: are disrupted and transformed into an elliptical merger remnant. Minor
57: mergers or accretion events are defined as encounters in which the structure
58: of the higher-mass progenitor (whether elliptical or spiral) is preserved
59: in the remnant.
60:
61: The predicted stellar populations of merger remnants depend greatly on the
62: gas fraction in the progenitor galaxies. In the extreme case suggested
63: by \citet{ashzepf}, where ellipticals form from predominantly gaseous spiral
64: galaxies, the resulting stellar population will differ from that of a
65: monolithic collapse elliptical only in age.
66:
67: An alternative expectation for the stellar population of the remnant
68: of a recent major merger event is similar to the frosting model of
69: \citet{ch2tfwg2}. The starburst at the time of the merger event involves
70: only a small fraction of the total mass of the system, with the bulk of
71: the galaxy being older and less metal-rich. A key difference between the
72: expectations of such a merger remnant and a an elliptical formed in a
73: single starburst is that the latter will have high [$\alpha$/Fe] due to
74: the short formation timescale, while stars formed within two spiral
75: galaxies will have near solar [$\alpha$/Fe] \citep*{tgb99}. In a merger
76: between spiral galaxies which have already converted much of their mass
77: into stars, the burst population will also have low
78: $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]\leq0.1$, as the gas from which it forms
79: has been enriched with iron from billions of years of SN~Ia. \citet{tgb99}
80: showed that although it is possible for a merger scenario to produce the
81: high [$\alpha$/Fe] values seen in most early-type galaxies, a flat initial
82: mass function (IMF) for the merger starburst population is required in
83: order to produce sufficient $\alpha$-elements. This
84: prediction of low [$\alpha$/Fe] is generalized to any galaxy formed
85: hierarchically by \citet{thomas99} using the semianalytic models of
86: \citet{k96}. The recent work of \citet{nagashima} arrives at the same
87: conclusions, obtaining enhanced [$\alpha$/Fe] only for a top-heavy IMF,
88: or near solar [$\alpha$/Fe] using an IMF more typical of quiescent star
89: formation in spiral galaxies.
90:
91: The paper is organized as follows. The sample selection and data are
92: described in \S~2. Stellar population analysis is performed in \S~3,
93: and conclusions are discussed in \S~4.
94:
95: \section{Sample Selection and Data}
96:
97: The bulk of the merger remnant sample was selected based on detections of
98: H{\sc i} tidal debris (J.~Hibbard 2000, private communication). As
99: \citet{hibmihos} showed, gas in tidal tails can remain bound but at large
100: radii for several Gyr after a major merger event. This criterion
101: preferentially selects early-type galaxies resulting from gas-rich
102: encounters. Galaxies which accreted a gas-rich satellite are
103: the primary contaminants for a sample of major merger remnants using this
104: H{\sc i} selection criterion. For example, \citet{vg86} proposed such an
105: accretion event to explain the H{\sc i} observations of NGC~1052, and
106: \citet{vdriel89} made a similar argument about NGC~3619.
107: Other selection criteria, such as the fine structure parameter of
108: \citet{ss92}, are sensitive to all types of merger event, major or minor,
109: gas-rich or gas-poor. \citet{hibsans} have shown that galaxies with large
110: fine structure parameters are no more likely than those with little fine
111: structure to have associated H{\sc i} tidal debris.
112: One galaxy in the selected sample, NGC~1052, is also
113: a member of the volume-limited sample of \citet[][hereafter Paper I]{paper1}
114: The merger remnant sample is listed in Table~1. Morphological T-types
115: \citep{rc3} and the $S/N$ ratio per pixel
116: near the H$\beta$ line are listed for each galaxy.
117:
118: NGC~7332 does not satisfy the H{\sc i} selection criterion \citep{hi7332} but
119: shows other indications suggesting a merger origin. Deviations from
120: the Fundamental Plane \citep{prugniel, forbes98} suggest a young age, and
121: \citet{ss92} find substantial fine structure ($\Sigma=4.00$) and a young
122: heuristic merger age $\sim5$~Gyr. Although NGC~7332 has a bimodal color
123: distribution of globular clusters, the age of the red population has not
124: been spectroscopically determined. The galaxy itself has been studied
125: spectroscopically; see \citet{tf02} for a summary. The SAURON group has
126: recently observed the entire galaxy at a limited wavelength coverage
127: \citep{sauron04}. Both spectroscopic studies find consistent ages of
128: 4.5--5~Gyr.
129:
130: Optical images overlaid with H{\sc i} maps are presented for five galaxies
131: in the merger remnant sample in Figs.~\ref{474map}--\ref{5903map}. NGC~474
132: is a gas-poor shell galaxy interacting with the nearby gas-rich spiral
133: galaxy NGC~470. It has a very large fine structure index $\Sigma=5.26$
134: and a relatively young heuristic merger age $\sim4$~Gyr \citep{ss92}.
135: However, the heuristic merger age is based on an analysis of $UBV$
136: color information, which is known to be insufficient to break the
137: age-metallicity degeneracy \citep{w94model}. NGC~1052 is a prototypical LINER
138: system \citep{1052liner} with two H{\sc i} tails (Fig.~\ref{1052map}).
139: \citet{ss92} find little fine structure ($\Sigma=1.78$) and a heuristic
140: merger age $\sim8$~Gyr. NGC~2534 has a single extended H{\sc i} tail,
141: as shown in Fig.~\ref{2534map}. In NGC~3619, the H{\sc i} emission is
142: colocated with the galaxy's stellar component, with a smaller
143: characteristic radius (Fig.~\ref{3619map}).
144: NGC~5903 shows extended H{\sc i} both within the galaxy and in two long
145: tidal tails (Fig.~\ref{5903map}).
146:
147: By construction, this sample is expected to have young ages as noted
148: above. Assuming that these galaxies formed in major merger events (and
149: that the merger starburst did not have an IMF strongly biased towards
150: massive stars), they are also expected to have low [$\alpha$/Fe] \citep{tgb99}.
151:
152: Observations and data analysis were performed identically as for the
153: volume-limited sample described in Paper~I. Longslit spectra were taken
154: using the Kast spectrograph with the 1200 lines/mm grating blazed at
155: $5000\mbox{\AA}$ on the Lick 3~meter telescope. The $145''$-long slit
156: was oriented along the galaxy's major axis. Four 25~minute exposures
157: were taken on each galaxy, interspersed with 5~minute sky exposures taken
158: several arcminutes away. The spectral range was
159: $4200\mbox{\AA}$--$5600\mbox{\AA}$, with instrumental resolution of
160: approximately 100~km/s. The slit width was typically $1.5^{\prime\prime}$,
161: though in poor seeing conditions this was increased to $2^{\prime\prime}$.
162: The plate scale for the spectrograph in this configuration was
163: $1.17\mbox{\AA}$/pixel in the dispersion direction and
164: $0.8^{\prime\prime}$/pixel in the spatial direction.
165:
166: The data were flat fielded, masked for cosmic rays and bad pixels, and
167: combined into a single spectrum for each galaxy. For most galaxies, sky
168: subtraction was performed using the edges of the slit, though some used
169: the sky exposures instead as described in Paper~I. None of the galaxies
170: in this sample are large enough in angular size for light from the galaxy
171: itself to significantly bias the sky measurement at the slit edges.
172: The galaxy spectra were extracted in $r_e/8$ apertures, with effective
173: radii taken from \citet{faber89} where possible, and from \citet{rc3}
174: otherwise (NGC~2534). Equivalent widths for the available Lick indices were
175: calculated using a version of the {\tt bwid} program, provided by
176: R.~M.~Rich \citep{bwid}. Velocity dispersion and emission corrections
177: were performed using the standard methods described in Paper~I. Emission
178: corrections were non-negligible in all galaxies in this sample, as
179: expected for objects with young stellar populations. Finally, the
180: standard star observations detailed in Paper~I were used to transform the
181: index measurements onto the Lick/IDS system. Index errors were calculated
182: using the error simulations and systematic uncertainties derived in Paper~I.
183: Measurements for all available indices are presented in Table~2.
184:
185: \section{Analysis}
186:
187: \subsection{Single Stellar Populations}
188:
189: One set of stellar population parameters was derived from the primary indices,
190: H$\beta$, Mg$b$, Fe5270, and Fe5335. Models from \citet*{ch2tmb03} were
191: used to interpolate age, [Z/H], and [$\alpha$/Fe] in the
192: H$\beta$--[MgFe]$^\prime$ (Fig.~\ref{hbmr}) and Mg$b$--$\langle{\rm Fe}\rangle$
193: planes. The H$\gamma$--[MgFe]$^\prime$ plane can also be
194: used to interpolate stellar population parameters, using models designed for
195: the higher-order Balmer lines by \citet*{tmk04} (Fig.~\ref{hgmr}).
196: A discussion of the relative merits of the two Balmer lines as
197: age indicators is presented in Paper~I. Since the merger remnant sample
198: suffers from considerable emission contamination, the ages derived using
199: H$\gamma$ as the age-sensitive index are expected to be more
200: accurate than ages using H$\beta$ as the age-sensitive index.
201: Quoted uncertainties are derived from the
202: index uncertainties in the manner described in Paper~I; note that the
203: resulting SSP uncertainties do not incorporate the systematic uncertainties
204: associated with the choice of specific models and indices used to
205: measure SSP quantities.
206:
207: Ideally, SSP parameters should be measured using all available information,
208: not just the handful of commonly-used indices described above. The
209: multiple index fitting code of \citet[][hereafter P04]{proctor04} provides
210: the most reliable measurements of age, [Z/H], and $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$, fitting
211: the three SSP parameters simultaneously using every index measured from
212: the galaxy spectrum. Of particular importance for the present
213: sample, deviant indices such as Balmer lines with large emission corrections
214: can be omitted from the fit. The drawback of this method is that it
215: relies on a different calibration of $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$ than the
216: Thomas~et~al. models. Both Thomas~et~al. and P04 take
217: into account the variation of $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$ with [Fe/H] below
218: solar metallicity in the stellar calibrators used in the construction of SSPs.
219: P04 extends the correction to supersolar metallicities.
220: This seemingly minor difference has major effects on correlations
221: between SSP parameters. P04 showed that using the
222: corrected calibration, the well-known $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$--$\sigma$
223: relation is destroyed, while correlations between $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$
224: and age, and $[\alpha/{\rm H}]$ and $\sigma$ are strengthened. An
225: unfortunate consequence of the calibration difference between
226: P04 and other models is that the results of the
227: multiple index fitting code cannot be directly compared to previous
228: results.
229:
230: The SSP parameters measured using all three
231: methods are listed in Table~3; both the SSP values derived using H$\gamma$
232: as the age-sensitive index and multi-index fitting values will be used
233: in the subsequent analysis. Good fits were obtained for all galaxies
234: using the latter method (Proctor 2005, private communication), though the
235: fits for NGC~474 and NGC~1052 were noticeably worse than the rest.
236:
237: Stellar population parameters age, [Z/H], and [$\alpha$/Fe] are
238: plotted against structural parameters $\sigma$, $M_B$, and log~$r_e$
239: in Fig.~\ref{asigmr}.
240: Also shown are the galaxies from the
241: volume limited sample described in Paper~I and galaxies from the
242: \citet[][hereafter G93]{ch2g93}
243: sample not included in the volume-limited sample. Index measurements
244: from G93 have been used to measure SSP parameters using the \citet{ch2tmb03}
245: models for consistency. The stellar population measurements from the
246: latter samples are derived from H$\beta$--[MgFe]$^\prime$ model grids.
247: However, for the purpose of illustrating the underlying qualitative trends
248: within a large and representative population of elliptical galaxies, the
249: difference between SSP measurements using H$\gamma$ or H$\beta$ as the
250: age-sensitive index is not of critical importance. Due to the difference
251: in [$\alpha$/Fe] calibration, the results of the multi-index fitting are
252: not as directly comparable.
253: Figure~\ref{asigmr} shows that the galaxies in the merger remnant sample
254: have the same distribution of stellar population parameters as
255: galaxies from the volume-limited sample with similar structural parameters.
256: According to Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, the probabilities that the samples
257: are drawn from the same distribution are 0.997, 0.59, and 0.24 in age,
258: [Z/H], and [$\alpha$/Fe] respectively.
259: With four of six galaxies (all six, using the multi-index fitting method)
260: having SSP ages less than or equal to 6~Gyr,
261: the merger remnant sample is, on average, significantly younger than the
262: volume-limited sample as a whole. The young ages cannot be directly
263: attributed to mergers, however, since these galaxies are on the low
264: mass, faint, small radius end of the distribution of the volume-limited
265: sample. The similarly young ages of galaxies in the volume-limited sample
266: with comparable sizes and luminosities suggests downsizing \citep{cowie}
267: as an adequate explanation.
268:
269: The merger remnant sample is also plotted on the metallicity hyperplane
270: in Fig.~\ref{pcmr}. This hyperplane was derived by \citep{ch2tfwg2} using
271: principal component analysis in the four dimensional parameter space of
272: velocity dispersion, age, metallicity, and [$\alpha$/Fe] abundance ratio.
273: PC1 increases with $\sigma$,
274: [$\alpha$/Fe], and to a lesser extent [Z/H]; PC2 increases with age and
275: decreases with [Z/H]; and PC3 increases with [$\alpha$/Fe] and decreases
276: with $\sigma$. Thus the remnants of major mergers, having low ages and
277: [$\alpha$/Fe], would be expected to have low values in each principal
278: component. No galaxy in the merger remnant sample occupies that part of
279: the hyperplane. The unusually low PC1 value of NGC~7332 is a result of a
280: small velocity dispersion combined with low [$\alpha$/Fe]. The remaining
281: galaxies in the sample are distributed similarly to the galaxies in the
282: volume-limited sample. Note that the calibration difference between
283: the multi-index fitting technique and previous SSP model estimates
284: prevents any meaningful use of the multi-index fits in reference to
285: the hyperplane. As mentioned previously, the [$\alpha$/Fe]--$\sigma$
286: relation (represented by the first principal component in the \citet{ch2tfwg2}
287: hyperplane) disappears using the P04 calibration.
288:
289: The distribution of the merger remnant sample along the $Z$-plane
290: \citep{ch2tfwg2} is shown
291: in Fig.~\ref{zplanemr}. Note that as described in Paper~I the best fit
292: line must be offset slightly in [Z/H] to account for the use of different
293: models than in \citet{ch2tfwg2}. \citet{ch2tfwg2} argued that a scaling
294: between age and metallicity can most sensibly be maintained over time by
295: episodes of star formation within the host galaxy. Stellar populations
296: formed in a single starburst cannot maintain a linear $Z$-plane projection
297: in this space of [Z/H], log~$t$, and log~$\sigma$ since log~$t$ changes more
298: rapidly at younger ages than at older ages. A major merger between
299: two spiral galaxies should not obey this same relation barring an improbable
300: conspiracy of stellar population parameters in the progenitor galaxies.
301: The metallicity and abundance ratios of the stars formed
302: in the merger starburst must have the proper scaling with respect to the
303: existing stellar populations of the progenitor galaxies in order for the
304: merger remnant to return to the $Z$-plane and the metallicity hyperplane.
305: Further, the range of allowed metallicities for the starburst population
306: is smaller for younger remnants than for older remnants. As with the
307: hyperplane above, multi-index fits cannot be meaningfully plotted on
308: the $Z$-plane.
309:
310: NGC~2534 is the only outlier from the $Z$-plane defined by the galaxies in
311: the volume-limited sample. The measured [Z/H] for this galaxy is too low
312: by $\sim0.3$~dex for it to lie along the plane; alternatively an age
313: older by $\sim3.5$~Gyr would bring NGC~2534 onto the $Z$-plane
314: at the present [Z/H] value. The latter is the more physically plausible
315: explanation: a small mass fraction starburst can easily decrease the SSP
316: age measurement by that amount and shift a galaxy off of the $Z$-plane
317: for several Gyr. Whether or not passive evolution ages the galaxy back
318: to the $Z$-plane depends on the metallicities of the original and starburst
319: populations \citep{ch2tfwg2}. A major merger event
320: could explain the location of NGC~2534 in this parameter space; this
321: possibility will be discussed in detail in \S~4. It is interesting that
322: the other five galaxies all lie on the $Z$-plane in good agreement
323: with the galaxies from Paper~I and G93. Since the multi-index fits are
324: not usable for this analysis, the errors for NGC~1052 are extremely large
325: and it is not a significant outlier.
326: As candidate merger remnants,
327: these galaxies would also be expected to lie above this projection of the
328: plane for the
329: same reasons as NGC~2534. It is worth noting that although galaxies which
330: lie above the $Z$-plane are likely to have a frosting population of
331: young stars, not all galaxies with such a frosting population will necessarily
332: lie above the $Z$-plane. However, gas originating in two distinct galaxies
333: is unlikely to have the necessary scaling of metal abundances to return the
334: resulting merger remnant to the $Z$-plane. The fact that so many suspected
335: merger remnants --- NGC~474, NGC~3619, NGC~5903, NGC~7332; NGC~3610
336: \citep{3610}; NGC~584, NGC~1700, NGC~5831, NGC~6702 \citep{ch2tfwg2} ---
337: do lie along the $Z$-plane is therefore an intriguing mystery.
338: Alternatively, this may indicate that the $Z$-plane is not as useful a
339: discriminant between past star formation histories as it appears, since
340: almost all ellipticals regardless of formation mechanism lie on this plane.
341:
342: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
343:
344: A small sample of merger remnant galaxies has been selected based primarily on
345: evidence of H{\sc i} tidal debris. High quality spectral line index
346: measurements have been used to estimate stellar population parameters (age,
347: metallicity, $\alpha$-enhancement) using the best available SSP models
348: and multi-index fitting techniques.
349:
350: Four galaxies, NGC~474, NGC~1052, NGC~3619, and NGC~5903, have broadly
351: similar properties. All lie along the $Z$-plane as defined by the
352: volume-limited sample of Paper~I. All have intermediate SSP ages
353: (4--6~Gyr) as measured using the multi-index fitting method of P04.
354: These galaxies have stellar populations more consistent with the
355: volume-limited sample (Paper~I) than with predictions of recent
356: major merger remnants. The stellar population measured for NGC~1052 can be
357: compared with the definitive study of \citet{pierce}. The results of
358: the multi-index fit are in reasonable agreement with \citet{pierce},
359: despite the fact that measurements relying on either Balmer line are
360: extremely inaccurate due to the strong emission contamination.
361:
362: The young SSP age and relatively low [Z/H] of NGC~2534 make it an outlier
363: from the $Z$-plane in precisely the sense
364: one would expect of a merger remnant with a small (by mass fraction) young
365: population overlying an older population. However, the [$\alpha$/Fe]
366: ratio in NGC~2534 is very large for an object in which most of the stars
367: formed in spiral galaxies, or from gas enriched with iron by the long
368: continuous star formation typical of spirals. Taking into account the
369: relatively small velocity dispersion, NGC~2534 is somewhat {\it more}
370: $\alpha$-enhanced than most elliptical galaxies (Fig.~\ref{asigmr}).
371: This high [$\alpha$/Fe] ratio places the galaxy at a very high PC3 value
372: in the metallicity hyperplane.
373: Instead of the remnant of a major merger, these results are more consistent
374: with NGC~2534 being an old, pre-existing elliptical which recently accreted
375: a small, gas-rich companion.
376:
377: NGC~7332 is another good match to merger remnant expectations. The SSP
378: measurements for NGC~7332 are in excellent agreement with other studies
379: \citep{sauron04, tf02} when the H$\gamma$ model grids are used. The
380: multi-index fit presented here yields a significantly younger age and higher
381: metallicity. The extreme position of NGC~7332 in Fig.~\ref{pcmr} is due to
382: the combination of low velocity dispersion and low (near solar) [$\alpha$/Fe].
383: The measurement of $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}] = +0.15$ (multi-index fit) is somewhat
384: larger than predicted \citep{tgb99}, and is also consistent with galaxies
385: of similar size in the volume-limited sample.
386: As discussed above and in \citet{ch2tfwg2},
387: the metallicities of the progenitor galaxies would have to be carefully
388: matched for the merger remnant to lie along the $Z$-plane as NGC~7332 does.
389:
390: Fundamental Plane residuals provide an independent indication of anomalously
391: young ages such as would be produced by a merger-induced starburst
392: \citep{forbes98}. The study of \citet{rothberg05} showed that optically
393: selected merger remnants which deviate from the Fundamental Plane do so
394: only in having higher surface brightness.
395: \citet{prugniel} calculated Fundamental Plane residuals for five
396: galaxies in the present sample. The residual for NGC~2534 was calculated
397: using Equation~4 of \citet{prugniel} with data taken from \citet{rc3}.
398: The Fundamental Plane residuals of NGC~474, 1052, 2534, 3619, and 5903
399: range from $+0.03$~to~$+0.11$. Only NGC~7332 has a large negative
400: residual indicative of a young age \citep{forbes98}.
401:
402: To summarize, two of the six galaxies fit some of the expected properties
403: of a ``King gap'' merger remnant \citep{tgb99}, though neither galaxy
404: precisely fits every prediction. The positions of NGC~7332 on the
405: hyper-plane and relative to the Fundamental Plane suggest that it is
406: the most likely merger remnant in the sample, though the abundance
407: ratio [$\alpha$/Fe] (multi-index fit) and position on the $Z$-plane
408: remain difficult to
409: explain. Taken as a group the SSP properties of the merger remnant
410: sample are not substantially different from those of structurally
411: similar (in velocity dispersion, luminosity, or radius) galaxies from the
412: volume-limited sample of Paper~I (Fig.~\ref{asigmr}). The merger remnant
413: sample is consistent with being drawn from the same distribution as the
414: volume-limited sample in each SSP parameter.
415:
416: The disagreement between derived SSP quantities and merger remnant predictions
417: should not necessarily be taken to imply that the galaxies are not merger
418: remnants. The similarities between the properties
419: of the merger remnant sample and the volume-limited sample, as well as the
420: non-detection of the expected major merger signatures (low age combined with
421: near solar [$\alpha$/Fe]) in four of the six galaxies suggest that this
422: ``merger remnant'' sample may include few remnants of recent major mergers.
423: Instead, as proposed for NGC~2534, these galaxies are more consistent with
424: being older elliptical galaxies which recently accreted a gas-rich companion
425: galaxy. It is also possible that the predictions for the stellar populations
426: of major merger remnants are not applicable to the galaxies in this sample.
427: \citet{tgb99} consider a merger of two galaxies similar to the Milky Way;
428: more gas-rich progenitors and thus a larger starburst by mass fraction would
429: result in supersolar [$\alpha$/Fe]. A top-heavy IMF has long been suggested
430: as another explanation for the large observed values of [$\alpha$/Fe] in
431: early-type galaxies. \citet{nagashima} incorporated such an IMF into
432: semi-analytical hierarchical galaxy formation models which reproduce the
433: observed [$\alpha$/Fe] values for some elliptical galaxies, though the
434: models at present fail to reproduce the [$\alpha$/Fe]-$\sigma$ relation.
435: As P04 discussed extensively, the calibration of
436: [$\alpha$/Fe] is tremendously important since many galaxy formation
437: models use the [$\alpha$/Fe]--$\sigma$ relation as a constraint.
438:
439: \acknowledgments
440:
441: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)
442: which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
443: Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
444: Administration. This work also made use of the Gauss-Hermite Pixel
445: Fitting Software developed by R.P. van der Marel. J.~H.~H. was supported
446: in part by an ARCS Fellowship. This research was supported in part by
447: NSF grant AST-0507483 to the University of California Santa Cruz. We
448: thank Ricardo Schiavon, Sandy Faber,
449: Jean Brodie, and Mike Beasley for helpful conversations, Rob Proctor
450: for the use of his multi-index fitting code and several important comments,
451: and the anonymous referee for comments which significantly improved the paper.
452:
453: \begin{thebibliography}{DUM}
454: %
455: \bibitem[Appleton, Pedlar, \& Wilkinson(1990)]{appleton}
456: Appleton, P.~N., Pedlar, A., \& Wilkinson, A.\ 1990, \apj, 357, 426
457: %
458: \bibitem[Ashman \& Zepf(1992)]{ashzepf} Ashman, K.~M.~\& Zepf,
459: S.~E.\ 1992, \apj, 384, 50
460: %
461: %\bibitem[Baade \& Gaposchkin(1963)]{baade} Baade, W.~\&
462: %Gaposchkin, C.~H.~P.\ 1963, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1963.,
463: %
464: %\bibitem[Brodie et~al.(2004)]{brodie04} Brodie, J.~P, et~al. 2004, in
465: %preparation
466: %
467: \bibitem[Burstein, Krumm, \& Salpeter(1987)]{hi7332} Burstein,
468: D., Krumm, N., \& Salpeter, E.~E.\ 1987, \aj, 94, 883
469: %
470: \bibitem[Cowie et~al.(1996)]{cowie} Cowie, L.~L., Songaila, A., Hu, E.~M.,
471: \& Cohen, J.~G.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 839
472: %
473: %\bibitem[Denicol\'{o} et~al.(2004)]{denicolo} Denicol\'{o}, G., Terlevich, R.,
474: %Terlevich, E., Forbes, D.~A., Terlevich, A., \& Carrasco, L. 2004, \mnras,
475: %in preparation
476: %
477: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs et al.(1995)]{rc3} de Vaucouleurs,
478: G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H.~G., Buta, R.~J., Paturel, G., \& Fouque,
479: P.\ 1995, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 7155, 0
480: %
481: \bibitem[Faber et~al.(1989)]{faber89} Faber, S.~M., Wegner, G., Burstein, D.,
482: Davies, R.~L., Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., \& Terlevich, R.~J. 1989,
483: \apjs, 69, 763
484: %
485: \bibitem[Falc{\' o}n-Barroso et al.(2004)]{sauron04} Falc{\'o}n-Barroso, J.,
486: et~al.\ 2004, \mnras, 350, 35
487: %
488: \bibitem[Forbes, Ponman, \& Brown(1998)]{forbes98} Forbes,
489: D.~A., Ponman, T.~J., \& Brown, R.~J.~N.\ 1998, \apjl, 508, L43
490: %
491: \bibitem[Gonzalez(1993)]{ch2g93} Gonzalez, J.~J. 1993, Ph.D. thesis, University
492: of California, Santa Cruz (G93)
493: %
494: \bibitem[Heckman(1980)]{1052liner} Heckman, T.~M.\ 1980, \aap, 87, 152
495: %
496: \bibitem[Hibbard \& Mihos(1995)]{hibmihos} Hibbard, J.~E.~\&
497: Mihos, J.~C.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 140
498: %
499: \bibitem[Hibbard \& Sansom(2003)]{hibsans} Hibbard, J.~E.~\&
500: Sansom, A.~E.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 667
501: %
502: \bibitem[Howell(2005)]{paper1} Howell, J.~H. 2005, \aj, accepted (Paper I)
503: %
504: \bibitem[Howell et al.(2004)]{3610} Howell, J.~H., Brodie,
505: J.~P., Strader, J., Forbes, D.~A., \& Proctor, R.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 2749
506: %
507: \bibitem[Kauffmann(1996)]{k96} Kauffmann, G.\ 1996, \mnras, 281, 487
508: %
509: \bibitem[Kaviraj et al.(2005)]{kaviraj} Kaviraj, S., Devriendt,
510: J.~E.~G., Ferreras, I., \& Yi, S.~K.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 60
511: %
512: \bibitem[King(1977)]{king} King, I.~R. 1977, in The Evolution of Galaxies
513: and Stellar Populations, edited by B.~M. Tinsley and R.~B. Larson (Yale
514: University Observatory, New Haven), p. 418
515: %
516: %\bibitem[Kuntschner \& Davies(1998)]{kd98} Kuntschner, H.~\&
517: %Davies, R.~L.\ 1998, \mnras, 295, L29
518: %
519: %\bibitem[Kuntschner et al.(2002)]{kuntschner} Kuntschner, H.,
520: %Smith, R.~J., Colless, M., Davies, R.~L., Kaldare, R. \& Vazdekis, A.\
521: %2002, \mnras, 337, 172
522: %
523: %\bibitem[Kuntschner et al.(2002)]{3115ref} Kuntschner, H.,
524: %Ziegler, B.~L., Sharples, R.~M., Worthey, G., \& Fricke, K.~J.\ 2002, \aap,
525: %395, 761
526: %
527: %\bibitem[Larsen et al.(2003)]{4365ref} Larsen, S.~S., Brodie,
528: %J.~P., Beasley, M.~A., Forbes, D.~A., Kissler-Patig, M., Kuntschner, H., \&
529: %Puzia, T.~H.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 767
530: %
531: \bibitem[Larson(1974)]{larson} Larson, R.~B.\ 1974, \mnras,
532: 166, 585
533: %
534: %\bibitem[Longhetti, Bressan, Chiosi, \&
535: %Rampazzo(2000)]{longhetti} Longhetti, M., Bressan, A., Chiosi,
536: %C., \& Rampazzo, R.\ 2000, \aap, 353, 917
537: %
538: \bibitem[Nagashima et al.(2005)]{nagashima} Nagashima, M., Lacey,
539: C.~G., Okamoto, T., Baugh, C.~M., Frenk, C.~S., \& Cole, S.\ 2005, \mnras,
540: L72
541: %
542: \bibitem[Pierce et al.(2005)]{pierce} Pierce, M., Brodie,
543: J.~P., Forbes, D.~A., Beasley, M.~A., Proctor, R., \& Strader, J.\ 2005,
544: \mnras, 358, 419
545: %
546: \bibitem[Proctor et al.(2004)]{proctor04} Proctor, R.~N., Forbes,
547: D.~A., Hau, G.~K.~T., Beasley, M.~A., De Silva, G.~M., Contreras, R., \&
548: Terlevich, A.~I.\ 2004, \mnras, 349, 1381 (P04)
549: %
550: %\bibitem[Proctor \& Sansom(2002)]{proctor02} Proctor, R.~N.~\&
551: %Sansom, A.~E.\ 2002, \mnras, 333, 517
552: %
553: \bibitem[Prugniel \& Simien(1996)]{prugniel} Prugniel, P.~\&
554: Simien, F.\ 1996, \aap, 309, 749
555: %
556: %\bibitem[Puzia et al.(2002)]{4365ir} Puzia, T.~H., Zepf,
557: %S.~E., Kissler-Patig, M., Hilker, M., Minniti, D., \& Goudfrooij, P.\ 2002,
558: %\aap, 391, 453
559: %
560: %\bibitem[Puzia et al.(2004)]{puzia} Puzia, T.~H., Kissler-Patig, M., Thomas,
561: %D., Maraston, C., Saglia, R. P., Bender, R., Richtler, T., Goudfrooij, P.,
562: %\& Hempel, M. 2004, \aap, 415, 123
563: %
564: \bibitem[Rich(1998)]{bwid} Rich, R.~M. 1998, ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 147, Abundance
565: Profiles: Diagnostic Tools for Galaxy History, ed. D.~Friedli, M.~Edmunds,
566: C.~Robert, \& L.~Drissen (San Francisco: ASP), p.~36
567: %
568: \bibitem[Rothberg \& Joseph(2005)]{rothberg05} Rothberg, B., \& Joseph,
569: R.~D., astro-ph/0510019
570: %
571: \bibitem[Schiminovich et~al.(2001)]{dave} Schiminovich, D.,
572: van Gorkom, J. H., Dijkstra, M., Li, Y., Petric, A., \& van der Hulst, J. M.\
573: 2001, ASP Conf.~Ser.~240: Gas and Galaxy Evolution, 864
574: %
575: \bibitem[Schweizer \& Seitzer(1992)]{ss92} Schweizer, F.~\&
576: Seitzer, P.\ 1992, \aj, 104, 1039
577: %
578: %\bibitem[Strader \& Brodie (2004)]{sb04} Strader, J. \& Brodie, J. 2004,
579: %\aj, accepted
580: %
581: %\bibitem[Tantalo, Chiosi, \& Bressan(1998)]{tantalo} Tantalo,
582: %R., Chiosi, C., \& Bressan, A.\ 1998, \aap, 333, 419
583: %
584: \bibitem[Terlevich \& Forbes(2002)]{tf02} Terlevich,
585: A.~I.~\& Forbes, D.~A.\ 2002, \mnras, 330, 547
586: %
587: \bibitem[Thomas(1999)]{thomas99} Thomas, D.\ 1999, \mnras, 306, 655
588: %
589: \bibitem[Thomas et~al.(1999)Thomas, Greggio, \& Bender]{tgb99} Thomas, D.,
590: Greggio, L., \& Bender, R.\ 1999, \mnras, 302, 537
591: %
592: \bibitem[Thomas et~al.(2003)Thomas, Maraston, \& Bender]{ch2tmb03}
593: Thomas, D., Maraston, C., \& Bender, R. 2003, \mnras, 339, 897
594: %
595: \bibitem[Thomas et~al.(2004)Thomas, Maraston, \& Korn]{tmk04} Thomas, D.,
596: Maraston, C., \& Korn, A.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, L19
597: %
598: %\bibitem[Tonry et~al.(2001)]{ch2tonry01} Tonry, J.~L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee,
599: %J.~P., Ajhar, E.~A., Fletcher, A.~B., Luppino, G.~A., Metzger, M.~R., \&
600: %Moore, C.~B. 2001, \apj, 546, 681
601: %
602: \bibitem[Toomre \& Toomre(1972)]{ch2toomre72} Toomre, A.~\& Toomre,
603: J.\ 1972, \apj, 178, 623
604: %
605: %\bibitem[Trager et~al.(1998)]{ch2trager98} Trager, S.~C., Worthey, G., Faber,
606: %S.~M., \& Gonzalez, J.~J. 1998, \apjs, 116, 1
607: %
608: %\bibitem[Trager et~al.(2000a)]{ch2tfwg1} Trager, S.~C., Faber, S.~M.,
609: %Worthey, G., \& Gonzalez, J.~J. 2000a, \aj, 119, 1645
610: %
611: \bibitem[Trager et~al.(2000)]{ch2tfwg2} Trager, S.~C., Faber, S.~M.,
612: Worthey, G., \& Gonzalez, J.~J. 2000b, \aj, 120, 165
613: %
614: %\bibitem[van der Marel(1994)]{ch2pixfit} van der Marel 1994, MNRAS, 270, 271
615: %
616: \bibitem[van Driel, Balkowski, \& van Woerden(1989)]{vdriel89}
617: van Driel, W., Balkowski, C., \& van Woerden, H.\ 1989, \aap, 218, 49
618: %
619: \bibitem[van Gorkom et al.(1986)]{vg86} van Gorkom, J.~H., Knapp, G.~R.,
620: Raimond, E., Faber, S.~M., \& Gallagher, J.~S.\ 1986, \aj, 91, 791
621: %
622: %\bibitem[Worthey et~al.(1994)]{ch2worthey94}
623: %Worthey, G., Faber, S.~M., Gonzalez, J.~J., \& Burstein, D.\ 1994, \apjs,
624: %94, 687
625: %
626: \bibitem[Worthey(1994)]{w94model} Worthey, G.\ 1994, \apjs, 95, 107
627: %
628: %\bibitem[Worthey \& Ottaviani(1997)]{ch2wo97} Worthey, G., \& Ottaviani, D.~L.
629: %1997, \apjs, 111, 377
630: %
631: %\bibitem[Zepf \& Ashman(1993)]{zepf93} Zepf, S.~E.~\& Ashman, K.~M.\ 1993,
632: %\mnras, 264, 611
633: %
634: \end{thebibliography}
635:
636: \vfill\eject
637:
638: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllll}
639: \tablecolumns{7}
640: \tablewidth{0pt}
641: \tablecaption{Merger Remnant Galaxy Sample}
642: \tablehead{
643: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{$\alpha$(J2000)} & \colhead{$\delta$(J2000)} & \colhead{T-type} & \colhead{$r_e$}& \colhead{$S/N$} & \colhead{Observed} \\
644: }
645: \startdata
646: NGC 474 & $01^{\rm h}20^{\rm m}06.70^{\rm s}$ & $+03^{\circ}24^{\prime}55.0^{\prime\prime}$ & $-2$ & $33.7^{\prime\prime}$ & 133.9 & 2000 November 27 \\
647: NGC 1052 & $02^{\rm h}41^{\rm m}04.80^{\rm s}$ & $-08^{\circ}15^{\prime}20.8^{\prime\prime}$ & $-5$ & $36.9^{\prime\prime}$ & 205.8 & 2000 November 26 \\
648: NGC 2534 & $08^{\rm h}12^{\rm m}54.1^{\rm s}$ & $+55^{\circ}40^{\prime}19^{\prime\prime}$ & $-5$ & $20.3^{\prime\prime}$ & 66.0 & 2002 November 3\\
649: NGC 3619 & $11^{\rm h}19^{\rm m}21.6^{\rm s}$ & $+57^{\circ}45^{\prime}29^{\prime\prime}$ & $-1$ & $25.5^{\prime\prime}$ & 107.3 & 2001 March 26 \\
650: NGC 5903 & $15^{\rm h}18^{\rm m}36.3^{\rm s}$ & $-24^{\circ}04^{\prime}06^{\prime\prime}$ & $-5$ & $35.3^{\prime\prime}$ & 88.9 & 2001 March 25 \\
651: NGC 7332 & $22^{\rm h}37^{\rm m}24.5^{\rm s}$ & $+23^{\circ}47^{\prime}54^{\prime\prime}$ & $-2$ & $14.7^{\prime\prime}$ & 146.8 & 2002 November 2\\
652: \enddata
653: \end{deluxetable}
654:
655: \begin{deluxetable}{lrllrlllllrllllll}
656: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
657: \rotate
658: \tablecolumns{17}
659: \tablewidth{0pt}
660: \tablecaption{Index Measurements: $r_e/8$ Aperture}
661: \tablehead{
662: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{Ca4227} & \colhead{G4300} & \colhead{H$\gamma_{\rm F}$} & \colhead{Fe4383} & \colhead{Ca4455} & \colhead{Fe4531} & \colhead{C4668} & \colhead{H$\beta$} & \colhead{[OIII]$\lambda5007$} & \colhead{Fe5015} & \colhead{Mg$b$} & \colhead{Fe5270} & \colhead{Fe5335} & \colhead{Fe5406} & \colhead{[MgFe]$^\prime$} \\
663: }
664: \startdata
665: NGC 474 & 169 & 1.12 & 4.75 & -1.05 & 5.34 & 1.58 & 3.75 & 6.79 & 1.86 & -0.49~~~~~~ & 6.12 & 4.55 & 3.25 & 2.55 & 1.56 & 3.73 \\
666: ~~~ & 4 & 0.10 & 0.14 & 0.11 & 0.09 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.07 & 0.07~~~~~~ & 0.20 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.05 \\
667: NGC 1052 & 215 & 1.20 & 5.72 & -2.17 & 6.50 & 1.43 & 3.78 & 8.24 & 1.21 & -3.71~~~~~~ & 1.90 & 5.96 & 3.05 & 2.78 & 1.88 & 4.21 \\
668: ~~~ & 4 & 0.10 & 0.14 & 0.38 & 0.09 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.7 & 1.0~~~~~~ & 0.64 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.05 \\
669: NGC 2534 & 158 & 0.91 & 4.25 & 0.01 & 3.90 & 1.17 & 3.24 & 6.12 & 2.27 & -1.02~~~~~~ & 4.74 & 3.70 & 2.56 & 2.12 & 1.50 & 3.00 \\
670: ~~~ & 6 & 0.10 & 0.14 & 0.13 & 0.21 & 0.14 & 0.09 & 0.20 & 0.11 & 0.14~~~~~~ & 0.29 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
671: NGC 3619 & 179 & 1.08 & 5.56 & -1.33 & 5.81 & 1.43 & 3.88 & 7.48 & 2.25 & -1.25~~~~~~ & 4.63 & 4.47 & 3.19 & 2.99 & 1.96 & 3.74 \\
672: ~~~ & 4 & 0.10 & 0.16 & 0.10 & 0.18 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.19 & 0.12 & 0.16~~~~~~ & 0.14 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
673: NGC 5903 & 211 & 1.40 & 5.97 & -2.10 & 5.73 & 1.73 & 3.72 & 7.00 & 1.92 & -0.42~~~~~~ & 5.83 & 4.57 & 3.05 & 2.78 & 1.63 & 3.69 \\
674: ~~~ & 4 & 0.10 & 0.16 & 0.08 & 0.18 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.19 & 0.08 & 0.08~~~~~~ & 0.12 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
675: NGC 7332 & 128 & 1.14 & 5.14 & -1.07 & 4.66 & 1.56 & 3.74 & 7.43 & 2.47 & -0.32~~~~~~ & 6.09 & 3.83 & 3.13 & 2.84 & 1.87 & 3.42 \\
676: ~~~ & 4 & 0.10 & 0.14 & 0.13 & 0.21 & 0.14 & 0.09 & 0.20 & 0.09 & 0.10~~~~~~ & 0.29 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.05 \\
677: \enddata
678: \end{deluxetable}
679: \normalsize
680:
681: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllllll}
682: \tablecolumns{10}
683: \tablewidth{0pt}
684: \tablecaption{Stellar Population Parameters}
685: \tablehead{
686: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\sigma}$} & Method & \colhead{Age} & \colhead{$\sigma_t$} & \colhead{[Z/H]} & \colhead{$\sigma_Z$} & \colhead{$[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\alpha}$} \\
687: & km/s & & & Gyr & & dex & & dex \\
688: }
689: \startdata
690: NGC 474 & 169 & 4 & H$\beta$ grid & 3.4 & 0.6 & 0.55 & 0.09 & 0.27 & 0.04 \\
691: & & & H$\gamma$ grid & 3.45 & 0.8 & 0.53 & 0.07 & 0.27 & 0.04 \\
692: & & & Multi-index fit & 4.4 & 1.2 & 0.38 & 0.07 & 0.24 & 0.03 \\
693: NGC 1052 & 215 & 5 & H$\beta$ grid & 16 & 14 & 0.42 & 0.3 & 0.44 & 0.12 \\
694: & & & H$\gamma$ grid & 10.9 & 8 & 0.48 & 0.16 & 0.46 & 0.09 \\
695: & & & Multi-index fit & 4 & 2 & 0.45 & 0.08 & 0.21 & 0.05 \\
696: NGC 2534 & 158 & 6 & H$\beta$ grid & 2.2 & 0.9 & 0.23 & 0.08 & 0.33 & 0.07 \\
697: & & & H$\gamma$ grid & 2.8 & 0.7 & 0.17 & 0.06 & 0.30 & 0.07 \\
698: & & & Multi-index fit & 2.7 & 0.2 & 0.20 & 0.05 & 0.27 & 0.04 \\
699: NGC 3619 & 179 & 4 & H$\beta$ grid & 1.2 & 1 & 0.94 & 0.16 & 0.33 & 0.05 \\
700: & & & H$\gamma$ grid & 5.4 & 1.5 & 0.43 & 0.06 & 0.18 & 0.05 \\
701: & & & Multi-index fit & 4.0 & 0.8 & 0.43 & 0.06 & 0.15 & 0.03 \\
702: NGC 5903 & 211 & 4 & H$\beta$ grid & 3.0 & 0.5 & 0.58 & 0.09 & 0.28 & 0.04 \\
703: & & & H$\gamma$ grid & 17.5 & 2 & 0.16 & 0.1 & 0.18 & 0.04 \\
704: & & & Multi-index fit & 6.0 & 1.6 & 0.28 & 0.04 & 0.15 & 0.05 \\
705: NGC 7332 & 128 & 4 & H$\beta$ grid & 0.8 & 0.3 & 0.88 & 0.14 & 0.26 & 0.04 \\
706: & & & H$\gamma$ grid & 6.1 & 1 & 0.22 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.04 \\
707: & & & Multi-index fit & 1.8 & 0.2 & 0.58 & 0.09 & 0.15 & 0.03 \\
708: \enddata
709: \end{deluxetable}
710: %\clearpage
711:
712: \vbox{
713: \begin{center}
714: \leavevmode
715: %\hbox{%
716: %\epsfxsize=9.2cm
717: %\epsffile{f1.ps}}
718: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f1.ps}
719: \figcaption{\small
720: Contours of H{\sc i} emission are overlaid on the DSS image of
721: NGC~474 (left) and the nearby spiral galaxy NGC~470 (right). The
722: disturbed, shell galaxy morphology of NGC~474 is clearly evident.
723: Although NGC~474 has little or no H{\sc i} of its own, it appears
724: to have accreted gas from NGC~470. This figure originally appeared
725: in \citet{dave}.
726: \label{474map}
727: }
728: \end{center}}
729:
730: \vbox{
731: \begin{center}
732: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f2.ps}
733: \figcaption{\small
734: Contours of H{\sc i} emission are overlaid on the DSS image of
735: NGC~1052. This figure originally appeared in \citet{vg86}.
736: \label{1052map}
737: }
738: \end{center}}
739:
740: \vbox{
741: \begin{center}
742: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f3.ps}
743: \figcaption[NGC 2534]{\small
744: Contours of H{\sc i} emission are overlaid on the DSS image of
745: NGC~2534. This figure originally appeared in \citet{dave}.
746: \label{2534map}
747: }
748: \end{center}}
749:
750: \vbox{
751: \begin{center}
752: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f4.ps}
753: \figcaption{\small
754: Contours of H{\sc i} emission are overlaid on the DSS image of
755: NGC~3619. This figure originally appeared in \citet{vdriel89}.
756: \label{3619map}
757: }
758: \end{center}}
759:
760: \vbox{
761: \begin{center}
762: \includegraphics[0in,0in][8in,7in]{f5.ps}
763: \figcaption{\small
764: Contours of H{\sc i} emission are overlaid on the DSS image of
765: NGC~5903. This figure originally appeared in \citet{appleton}.
766: \label{5903map}
767: }
768: \end{center}}
769:
770: \vbox{
771: \begin{center}
772: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f6.eps}
773: \figcaption{\small
774: Galaxies from the merger remnant sample are plotted on the H$\beta$ vs.
775: [MgFe]$^\prime$ plane (NGC numbers). Also shown are galaxies from the
776: volume limited sample. Solid circles are from Paper~I; open triangles are
777: from G93. Models are from \citet{ch2tmb03}. Typical error bars are in
778: the lower left.
779: \label{hbmr}
780: }
781: \end{center}}
782:
783: \vbox{
784: \begin{center}
785: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7.eps}
786: \figcaption{\small
787: Galaxies from the merger remnant sample are plotted on the H$\gamma_{\rm F}$
788: vs. [MgFe]$^\prime$ plane (NGC numbers). Also shown are galaxies from the
789: volume limited sample (black points; Paper~I). Models are from
790: \citet{tmk04}. Typical error bars are in the lower left.
791: \label{hgmr}
792: }
793: \end{center}}
794:
795: \vbox{
796: \begin{center}
797: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f8.eps}
798: \figcaption{\small
799: Comparison between parameters relating to the average stellar composition
800: (age, [Z/H], [$\alpha$/Fe]) and parameters relating to galaxy size ($\sigma$,
801: $M_B$, log$r_e$). Open circles are galaxies from the volume-limited
802: sample (Paper~I), open triangles are G93 galaxies included in the
803: volume-limited sample, and three-pointed stars are the G93 galaxies not
804: included in the volume-limited sample. The solid circles represent the merger
805: remnant sample as measured using the H$\gamma$ index SSP models, while the
806: solid squares are the same galaxies as measured by the multi-index fitting
807: procedure. Contrary to expectations \citep{tgb99}, the
808: merger remnant sample is distributed consistently with the
809: volume-limited sample.
810: \label{asigmr}
811: }
812: \end{center}}
813:
814:
815: \vbox{
816: \begin{center}
817: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f9.eps}
818: \figcaption{\small
819: Merger remnant galaxies plotted on the metallicity hyperplane. Open
820: symbols and three-pointed stars
821: are as in Fig.~\ref{asigmr}. Merger remnant galaxies are plotted using
822: their NGC numbers. Projections of each SSP parameter along principal
823: component axes are shown in the lower right. PC1 depends primarily on
824: velocity dispersion and $\alpha$-enhancement, PC2 depends primarily on
825: age and metallicity, and PC3 measures deviations from the
826: [$\alpha$/Fe]--$\sigma$ relation. See Paper~I for details. The merger
827: remnant galaxies are generally consistent with the distribution of the
828: volume-limited sample. NGC~7332 has the low PC1 value expected
829: of a merger remant \citep{tgb99}; however the galaxy is otherwise
830: consistent with the volume-limited sample.
831: \label{pcmr}
832: }
833: \end{center}}
834:
835: \vbox{
836: \begin{center}
837: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f10.eps}
838: \figcaption{\small
839: Merger remnant galaxies plotted on the $Z$-plane. Points are as in
840: Fig.~\ref{pcmr}. The best-fit line from \citet{ch2tfwg2} is shown. The
841: offset between this line and the locus of the volume-limited sample is
842: due to differences in models between this work and \citet{ch2tfwg2}; see
843: text for details. The deviation of
844: NGC~2534 from the plane is plausibly explained by a recent starburst
845: overlying an older stellar population that constitutes the majority of
846: the galaxy's stellar mass.
847: \label{zplanemr}
848: }
849: \end{center}}
850:
851: \end{document}
852: