1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'ms.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2007, May 4th
5: %%
6: %% This is a Batcheldor et al. manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
36: %% the \begin{document} command.
37: %%
38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
41: %% for information.
42:
43: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
44: \newcommand{\myemail}{dpbpci@astro.rit.edu}
45:
46: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
47:
48: \slugcomment{ApJ Letters Accepted}
49:
50: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
51: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
52: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
53: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
54: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
55: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
56:
57: \shorttitle{NIR Luminosities in BCGs}
58: \shortauthors{Batcheldor et al.}
59:
60: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
61: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
66: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
67: %% you desire.
68:
69: \title{How Special are Brightest Cluster Galaxies? The Impact of Near-Infrared Luminosities on Scaling Relations for BCGs}
70:
71: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
72: %% author and affiliation information.
73: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
74: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
75: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
76: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
77:
78: \author{Dan Batcheldor\altaffilmark{1}, Alessandro Marconi\altaffilmark{2}, David Merritt\altaffilmark{3} \& David J. Axon\altaffilmark{3}}
79: \email{dpbpci@astro.rit.edu}
80: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Imaging Science, Rochester Institute of Technology,
81: Rochester, NY 14623}
82: \altaffiltext{2}{INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico Astrofisico di Arcetri, 50125 Firenze, Italy}
83: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, Rochester Institute of Technology,
84: Rochester, NY 14623}
85:
86:
87: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
88: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
89: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
90: %% affiliation.
91:
92: \begin{abstract}
93: Using the extended J, H and K magnitudes provided by the 2MASS data archive, we consider the position of brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs)
94: in the observed relations between inferred supermassive black hole (SMBH) mass and the host galaxy properties, as well as their position
95: in the stellar velocity dispersion and luminosity ($\sigma_{\ast}-L$) relation, compared to E and S0 galaxies. We find that
96: SMBH masses ($M_\bullet$) derived from near-infrared (NIR) magnitudes do not exceed $\sim3\times10^{9}M_{\odot}$ and that these masses
97: agree well with the predictions made from $\sigma_{\ast}$. In the NIR, there is no evidence that BCGs leave the $\sigma_{\ast}-L$ relation
98: defined by less luminous galaxies. The higher SMBH masses predicted from V-band luminosities ($M_\bullet \lesssim 10^{10.5}M_\odot$) are
99: attributed to the presence of extended envelopes around the BCGs, however, this will need to be confirmed using deeper multiwavelength imaging.
100: \end{abstract}
101:
102: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
103: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
104: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
105: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
106:
107: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
108: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the
109: %% subject header. Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"
110: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the
111: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each
112: %% individual object, not exceed six. The \objectname{} macro, and its
113: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object. The macro takes the object
114: %% name as its primary argument. This name will appear in the paper
115: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name
116: %% is recognized by the data centers. The macro also takes an optional
117: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification
118: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.
119:
120: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: fundamental parameters --- galaxies: photometry}
121:
122: \clearpage
123:
124: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
125: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
126: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
127: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
128: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
129: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
130: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
131: %% each reference.
132:
133: \section{Introduction}
134:
135: Whether the first galaxies were formed from initial large-scale condensations, or grew from an assembly of smaller bodies, still remains
136: one of the most fundamental questions in modern astrophysics. Studies of the most massive galaxies will provide important constraints on
137: this. Similar considerations apply to supermassive black holes (SMBHs) as the masses of SMBHs correlate with properties of the host bulge
138: \citep{fandf05}, i.e., the SMBH mass {\it vs.} bulge luminosity ($M_{\bullet}-L$) relation \citep{kandr95}, the SMBH mass {\it vs.}
139: stellar velocity dispersion ($M_{\bullet}-\sigma_{\ast}$) relation \citep{fandm00,geb00}, and the SMBH mass {\it vs.} Sersic index relation
140: \citep{gd07}.
141:
142: As highly luminous massive galaxies found toward the centers of galaxy clusters, brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) have received
143: considerable interest. The surface brightness profiles (SBPs) of BCGs are well fit by the same \citet{ser63} law that describes
144: less-luminous spheroids \citep{gra96}, apart from the outer-most regions which sometimes exhibit faint, extended envelopes
145: \citep[hereafter B06]{oem76,ber06}. BCGs also appear to obey the same relations between fitting parameters that characterize E/S0 galaxies
146: generally \citep{gra96}. \citet[hereafter L06]{lau06a} noted that the $M_\bullet-L$ relation, in the V-band ($M_{\bullet}-L_{\rm V}$),
147: predicts higher SMBH masses in BCGs than are predicted by the $M_\bullet-\sigma_{\ast}$ relation. B06 obtain similar results; the slope
148: in the size-luminosity relation is found to be steeper in BCGs when compared to the bulk of E/S0's, and the $\sigma_{\ast}$ {\it vs.}
149: luminosity ($\sigma_{\ast}-L_{\rm R}$) relation is seen to flatten for the brightest galaxies.
150:
151: While the low-scatter $M_{\bullet}-\sigma_{\ast}$ relation is the preferred ``secondary'' SMBH mass estimation technique, compared to the
152: larger-scatter $M_{\bullet}-L_{\rm V}$ relation, \citet[hereafter MH03]{mandh03} have shown that the scatter in the relations become similar if
153: parameters are derived in the near-infrared (NIR). With this in mind we have conducted a study of BCGs based on the 2MASS extended source
154: catalog. We use the 219 L06 galaxies of which $\sim30\%$ are BCGs and the remainder are E/S0s. The L06 data include absolute V-band
155: magnitudes ($M_{\rm V}$) and, except in 51 cases, a value for $\sigma_{\ast}$. We adopt the errors of 10\% in $M_{\rm V}$ and $\sigma_{\ast}$, as
156: quoted by L06. We supplement the $M_{\rm V}$ data with the NIR data contained within the 2MASS extended source catalog. All magnitudes are
157: corrected for galactic extinction according to \citet{sch98}. Distances are all adjusted to a common scale, with
158: $H_0=70{\rm~km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$, and primarily taken from the survey of \citet{ton01}. Remaining distances are taken from \citet{lai03}
159: or from the Virgo in-fall corrected recessional velocities listed by Hyperleda\footnote{\tt http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr} \citep{pat03}.
160: In \S~\ref{phot} we evaluate the 2MASS photometry. In \S~\ref{main} we present the results, which are discussed in \S~\ref{dis}.
161: \S~\ref{con} sums up.
162:
163: \section{2MASS Photometry}\label{phot}
164:
165: In this study we have used the 2MASS ``total'' magnitudes (e.g., $k\_m_{\rm ext}$) derived from SBP fitting extrapolation\footnote{For more
166: information see sections 2.3a and 4.5e of {\tt http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/}}, rather than aperture photometry
167: which inevitably under-estimates the total galaxy magnitudes \citep{and02}. Briefly, $k\_m_{\rm ext}$ is estimated by numerical integration
168: of the S{\'e}rsic law, fitted between $r>7$--$10''$ (to avoid the point spread function) and the maximum radius ($r_{max}$) of the SBP with
169: a signal to noise greater than two. Assuming circular isophotes and $r_{max}=20$--$80''$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:2mass}), this corresponds to a
170: SBP limit from 2.9 to 3.7 magnitudes below the 2MASS $3\sigma$ limit (20.09, 19.34 and 18.55 in J, H and K). The best-fitting S{\'e}rsic law
171: is then integrated up to $r_{\rm ext}$ (the galaxy ``total'' radius). Typically, $r_{\rm ext}$ is $\sim2$--$5$ times the radius of the 20
172: mag/arcsec$^2$ isophote (e.g., $r_{\rm k20}$) where $5\, r_{\rm k20}$ is imposed as a strict upper limit.
173:
174: \begin{figure}
175: \plotone{f1.eps}
176: \caption{Simulations of 2MASS photometry. The distribution of simulated galaxy properties, total K-band magnitude and $r_{\rm ext}$, (black circles) with
177: respect to observed BCGs (red circles).}
178: \label{fig:2mass}
179: \end{figure}
180:
181: \begin{figure}
182: \plotone{f2.eps}
183: \caption{Simulations of 2MASS photometry. The difference between ``true'' and estimated magnitudes from $\sim3500$ simulations is shown. The
184: dashed line marks the median of the distribution.}\label{fig:2mass2}
185: \end{figure}
186:
187: To quantify the importance of undetected light at large radii, we have carried out extensive simulations of BCGs and performed 2MASS analogous
188: photometry. Over $3500$ BCGs with $M_{\rm V}$ and $z$ randomly distributed in the observed ranges (-24.5 -- -22 and 0.015 -- 0.050,
189: respectively) were generated. For each BCG the effective radius was derived from the $r_{\rm e}-M_{\rm V}$ relation provided by L06, and the S{\'e}rsic
190: index, $n$, was derived from the $n-r_{\rm e}$ relation estimated from Figure~11 of \citet{gra96} (0.2 dex scatter was included for both). In
191: all cases we imposed $1<n<15$. The observed total K magnitude, $M_{\rm K}$, was then derived using V-K=3.6. The model images of each BCG
192: (characterized by $m_{\rm K}$, $r_{\rm e}$ and $n$) were then generated using {\tt GALFIT} \citep{pen02} to take into account the 2MASS pixel sizes
193: (1\arcsec) and spatial resolution (FWHM $\sim 3\arcsec$). We added 2MASS typical noise (K = 19.74 mag/arcsec$^2$ rms) and derived SBPs that
194: were fitted with a S{\'e}rsic law to estimate $r_{\rm ext}$ and $k\_m_{\rm ext}$. To reproduce the magnitude-size relation (see Figure~\ref{fig:2mass})
195: we used an average $r_{\rm ext}$ of $2.4 r_{k20}$. Figures~\ref{fig:2mass} and \ref{fig:2mass2} show how the simulated magnitudes compare to the
196: actual BCG magnitudes and the ``true'' simulated input magnitudes. The average offset is -0.5 mags (50$^{\rm th}$ percentile); 2MASS mildly underestimates
197: $M_{\rm K}$ in BCGs. Simulations using bluer colors (V-K=3.3) give very similar result.
198:
199: \begin{figure}
200: \plotone{f3.eps}
201: \caption{Comparing the radii of V-band and NIR magnitudes. The solid line is one-to-one. Open and closed circles show the
202: relation between $r_{\rm r23}$ and $r_{\rm k20}$ and $r_{\rm ext}$ respectively.\label{fig:comprad}}
203: \end{figure}
204:
205: \begin{figure}
206: \plotone{f4.eps}
207: \caption{The relationship between $\sigma_{\ast}$ and luminosity in the V-band (a) and K-band (b). Open black circles mark E and S0s,
208: filled red circles show BCGs. The solid lines show the fit to just the E/S0s, the dotted lines mark the fit of \citet{ber06}.}
209: \label{fig:lsig}
210: \end{figure}
211:
212: In \S~\ref{main} we will directly compare the results from extrapolating photometry estimated in the V-band and NIR. As the V-band
213: photometry may have been gained from different radii (thereby gathering a different amount of light) we now briefly compare the relative
214: sizes of the regions from which the photometry was derived. The L06 V-band BCG luminosities were provided by \citet{lai03}, who in turn
215: estimated the total magnitudes from SBPs presented by \citet{pl95}. \citet{gra96} performed S{\'e}rsic fits to these SBPs using a limiting
216: R-band surface brightness. Therefore, assuming a color of R-K=3.0, we can directly compare the radii of $r_{\rm ext}$ and $r_{k20}$ (the radius of
217: the K=20 mag/arcsec$^2$ isophote) with the R-band surface brightness at 23.0 mag/arcsec$^2$ ($r_{\rm r23}$). By calculating $r_{\rm r23}$ from
218: the \citet{gra96} BCG S{\'e}rsic fits, we find that $r_{\rm k20}$ agrees well with the $r_{\rm r23}$ radii (Figure~\ref{fig:comprad}). However,
219: $r_{\rm ext}$ is always larger than $r_{\rm r23}$. Therefore, the 2MASS magnitudes used in this study include light {\it from at least} as extended
220: a region as the V-band magnitudes used by L06.
221:
222: As an additional check, we can compare published values of $M_{\rm K}$ to those derived by MH03 from two-dimensional fitting to 2MASS
223: profiles out to infinity. We find a systematic offset of $\sim0.4$ mags, consistent with our simulations.
224:
225: \begin{figure}
226: \plotone{f5.eps}
227: \caption{V-band {\it vs.} NIR $M_{\bullet}$ estimates. The solid line marks a one-to-one relation. Open circles are E/S0's, closed
228: circles are BCGs. Blue, green and red colors refer to the J, H and K bands respectively. The dotted line marks the fit to all the
229: K-band data.\label{fig:vvsnir}}
230: \end{figure}
231:
232: \section{BCGs in the NIR}\label{main}
233:
234: Figure~\ref{fig:lsig} compares the $\sigma_{\ast}-L_{\rm V}$ and $\sigma_{\ast}-L_{\rm K}$ relations. In both cases we plot the
235: best-fit relation defined by the E/S0 galaxies (solid line) as well as the $\sigma_{\ast}-L_{\rm R}$ fit given by B06 (their Figure~6 with
236: colors of V-R=0.6 and R-K=3.0). We find shallower slopes for the E/S0 population consistent with B06. Figure~\ref{fig:lsig}(a)
237: demonstrates that the ``bending'' of the $\sigma_{\ast}-L_{\rm V}$ relation, as noted by B06, is also seen in the L06 sample; BCGs fall above
238: the relation defined by the E/S0s. In the NIR (Figure~\ref{fig:lsig}b) the BCGs do not appear to define a separate population; instead their
239: distribution is indistinguishable from that of the E/S0s. The average offset of BCGs from the E/S0 relation is 1.20 mags in $M_{\rm V}$ and 0.48 mags
240: in $M_{\rm K}$.
241:
242: Figure~\ref{fig:vvsnir} presents the relationship between $M_{\bullet}$ estimated from the V-band (hereafter $M_{\bullet}(V)$), using the
243: relation as defined by L06 (their Equation~4), and $M_{\bullet}$ estimated from the NIR data (hereafter $M_{\bullet}(J,H,K)$) using the
244: relations defined by the MH03 sample. The upper limit for $M_{\bullet}(V)$ is $10^{10.5}M_{\odot}$. Below $M_\bullet\approx10^{8.5}M_{\odot}$
245: the agreement between all bands is good. Above $10^{8.5}M_{\odot}$, the NIR data predict significantly lower SMBH masses, with none exceeding
246: $10^{9.4}M_{\odot}$. The fit to the K-band relation is shown as a dotted line and has a slope of $0.62\pm0.02$ ($0.74\pm0.02$ for E/S0s). For
247: estimates of $M_{\bullet}(J,H,K)$ we do not use the exact fits presented by MH03 (e.g. their Table 2) as they were derived using a bisector method
248: (e.g., assuming scatter in both $M_{\bullet}$ and $L_{\rm J,H,K}$). Instead, $M_{\bullet}(J,H,K)$ has been determined from a single Y$|$X fit to
249: $M_{\bullet}$ and $L$ (taking into account errors from both axis) because in estimating $M_{\bullet}$ from $L$ one assumes that all the scatter is
250: in only one variable. The form of this relation, in the K-band, is given by $\log{M_{\bullet}}=8.22\pm0.07+(1.06\pm0.11)(\log{L_K}-10.9)$. The results,
251: in this case, are insignificant from the original MH03 fits ($\sigma=10^{0.04}M_{\odot}$).
252:
253: Figure~\ref{fig:dirsigmag} shows how photometric $M_{\bullet}$ estimates compare to those from the $M_{\bullet}-\sigma_{\ast}$
254: relation. The \citet{tre02} expression is used to derive $M_{\bullet}$ from $\sigma_{\ast}$, hereafter $M_{\bullet}(\sigma_{\ast})$.
255: In Figure~\ref{fig:dirsigmag}(a) the $M_{\bullet}-L_{\rm V}$ relation (above $10^{8.5}M_{\odot}$) predicts SMBH masses greater than those expected
256: from the $M_{\bullet}-\sigma_{\ast}$ relation. However, in the NIR, this observation is not made; both predictions are consistent. The
257: $M_{\bullet}-L_V$ relation implies $M_{\bullet}\lesssim2.5\times10^{10}M_{\odot}$, whereas the NIR produces
258: $M_{\bullet}\lesssim2.8\times10^{9}M_{\odot}$. The scatter in the $M_{\bullet}(J,H,K)-M_{\bullet}(\sigma_{\ast})$ relations are significantly less
259: than the $M_{\bullet}(V)-M_{\bullet}(\sigma_{\ast})$ relation.
260:
261: The effect of the results from the \S~\ref{phot} simulations can be seen by artificially and randomly introducing the distribution
262: of $\Delta$ mag to the K-band magnitudes. A comparison of $M_{\bullet}(\sigma_{\ast})$ and the adjusted $M_{\bullet}(K)$ is shown in
263: Figure~\ref{fig:simmag}. The slope of the best fit relation (dotted line) is $0.85\pm0.05$ and no values of $M_{\bullet}(K)$ exceed $10^{9.7}M_{\odot}$.
264:
265: \section{Discussion}\label{dis}
266:
267: It is evident from both Figures~\ref{fig:lsig} and \ref{fig:dirsigmag} that the dispersion of BCGs in the NIR is considerably less than
268: in the V-band. This is also the case for the E/S0s. Even if we are underestimating the NIR luminosities, it would require a very fortunate
269: coincidence to have such a strong agreement between $M_\bullet(\sigma_{\ast})$ and $M_{\bullet}(J,H,K)$ across the entire mass function.
270: It then follows that BCGs are not ``special'' when viewed at NIR wavelengths. BCGs follow the same $\sigma_{\ast}-L_{\rm K}$ distribution as
271: defined by less luminous spheroids, and comparable masses are predicted for the SMBHs in BCGs based either on velocity dispersions or on
272: total magnitudes.
273:
274: We have demonstrated, through extensive simulations, that the 2MASS magnitudes used in this study are robust to within 0.5 mags for BCGs.
275: This is consistent with the offset between the 2MASS photometry and that of MH03, who take the total magnitude components of S{\'e}rsic fits
276: to two-dimensional photometric models. This offset is expected as the 2MASS total magnitude integrations stop at $r_{\rm ext}$. For the
277: $M_{\bullet}-L_{\rm J,H,K}$ relations to predict a population of $10^{10}M_{\odot}$ SMBHs, i.e., for the BCGs to fall on the one-to-one
278: relation in Figure~\ref{fig:vvsnir}, 2MASS photometry would have to be increased, on average, by 1.65 mags. This offset is inconsistent
279: with the 2MASS underestimates. The offset would also need to vary with $M_{\bullet}$ and have no effect at masses below
280: $10^{8.5}M_{\odot}$ where the results between $M_{\bullet}-L_{\rm V}$ and $M_{\bullet}-L_{\rm J,H,K}$ are consistent. Conversely, the V-band
281: photometry must be overestimated by 2.17 mags, on average, for the upper limit of $M_{\bullet}$ to be similar to that predicted from
282: the NIR.
283:
284: Why then do BCGs show an excess of V-band light over their less massive cousins? The issue could be resolved by considering the faint
285: extended luminous halos known to surround the most massive galaxies \citep{oem76}. The signature of such halos is an inflection in the
286: SBPs at large $r$. In the NIR, the total magnitudes could be missing the contributions from faint halos or, alternatively, V-band
287: luminosities could be interpreted as over-estimates due to the spurious inclusion of halo light. Since extended halos predominantly
288: sit in the overall cluster potential, they are unlikely to be related dynamically to the central regions from which the BCG
289: $\sigma_{\ast}$ is typically measured. Photometry from further toward the blue end of the spectrum may be deep enough to include
290: a significant contribution from these extended halos, leading to an increase in the estimation of BCGs luminosities and a turn-over in
291: $M_{\bullet}$ estimates above a certain threshold.
292:
293: \begin{figure*}
294: \plotone{f6.eps}
295: \caption{Comparing photometric $M_{\bullet}$ estimates with $M_{\bullet}-\sigma_{\ast}$ estimates. V, J, H and K masses (a, b, c and d
296: respectively) are compared to $M_{\bullet}-\sigma_{\ast}$ estimates. Open black circles are E/S0s, BCGs are filled red circles. In all cases
297: the solid line represents a one-to-one relation and the dotted line the best-fit relation.\label{fig:dirsigmag}}
298: \end{figure*}
299:
300:
301: \begin{figure}
302: \plotone{f7.eps}
303: \caption{Comparing redistributed $M_{\bullet}(K)$ estimates with $M_{\bullet}-\sigma_{\ast}$ estimates. Black circles are E/S0s, BCGs are red circles. The
304: solid line represents a one-to-one relation and the dotted line the best fit relation.\label{fig:simmag}}
305: \end{figure}
306:
307: While we have shown that BCGs are not ``special'' in terms of their $\sigma_{\ast}-L_{\rm K}$ distribution, nevertheless, their extreme
308: luminosities and unique locations close to the centers of galaxy clusters suggest special formation processes. It has long been
309: argued that the extended envelopes of BCGs are debris from tidally-stripped galaxies, and hence that they are associated more closely with
310: the overall cluster potential well than with any single galaxy \citep{mer84a}. The envelopes may also consist in part of stars formed in
311: cooling flows \citep{fab94}. The presence of multiple nuclei in some BCGs argues in favor of these galaxies not being fully relaxed
312: \citep{mer84b}. A photometrically complete, high-resolution imaging survey of BCGs would be able to provide a framework for a more
313: quantitative analysis of these fundamentally important objects.
314:
315: \section{Conclusions}\label{con}
316:
317: Brightest cluster galaxies offer the chance to study the pinnacle of galaxy evolution. They also give us the opportunity to study the
318: top of the SMBH food chain by using the observed relations between $M_{\bullet}$ and the properties of the surrounding host galaxy.
319: We have shown that NIR luminosities, combined with previously established scaling relations (MH03), imply a maximum mass of
320: $\sim3\times10^{9}M_{\odot}$. This is consistent with the most massive SMBH directly modeled at the center of M87 \citep{mac97} and with
321: the direct $M_{\bullet}$ estimates of \citet{dal06} in 3 BCGs. We also find that, across all values, SMBH masses predicted using NIR magnitudes
322: are consistent with masses predicted from $\sigma_{\ast}$. In addition, we have shown that BCGs follow the same distribution, as defined by E/S0
323: galaxies, in the $\sigma_{\ast}-L_{\rm K}$ relation. If confirmed by a deep multiwavelength study, these findings could have important implications
324: for the nature of the SMBH mass function, and, as in the past, would show that NIR data are to be preferred when estimating $M_{\bullet}$ (MH03).
325: While BCGs are likely not special -- in the sense of hosting hyper-massive black holes or by defining a distinct population in the
326: $\sigma_{\ast}-L_{\rm K}$ plane -- they may be interesting by virtue of being surrounded by extended faint halos. The unique local BCG
327: environment, deep within a cluster potential, could be the generator of these halos, which may be populated by younger stars tidally stripped
328: from other cluster members or that are the results of intra-cluster gas accretion or other recent merger events.
329:
330: \acknowledgments
331:
332: We would like to thank Alister Graham, Tod R. Lauer and Mariangela Bernardi for their comments on this manuscript. This research used
333: NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which is operated by the JPL, CalTech, under contract with the NASA. We acknowledge the usage of the
334: HyperLeda database (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr). D.M acknowledges support from grants AST 00-71099, AST 02-06031, AST 04-20920, and
335: AST 04-37519 from the NSF, grant NNG04GJ48G from NASA, and grant HST-AR-09519.01-A from STScI.
336:
337: \begin{thebibliography}{}
338: \bibitem[Andreon(2002)]{and02} Andreon, S.\ 2002, \aap, 382, 495
339: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2006)]{ber06} Bernardi, M., et al. 2006, submitted (astro-ph/0607117)
340: \bibitem[Dalla Bont\'{a} et al.(2006)]{dal06} Dalla Bont\'{a}, E., et al. 2006, in press (astro-ph/060702)
341: \bibitem[Fabian(1994)]{fab94} Fabian, A.~C.\ 1994, \araa, 32, 277
342: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{fandm00} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, L9
343: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Ford(2005)]{fandf05} Ferrarese, L., \& Ford, H.\ 2005, Space Science Reviews, 116, 523
344: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000)]{geb00} Gebhardt, K., et al.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, L13
345: \bibitem[Graham et al.(1996)]{gra96} Graham, A., Lauer, T.~R., Colless, M., \& Postman, M.\ 1996, \apj, 465, 534
346: \bibitem[Graham \& Driver(2007)]{gd07} Graham, A.~W., \& Driver, S.~P. 2007, \apj, 655 (astro-ph/0607378)
347: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone(1995)]{kandr95} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D. 1995, ARA\&A, 33, 581
348: \bibitem[Laine et al.(2003)]{lai03} Laine, S., van der Marel, R.~P., Lauer, T.~R., Postman, M., O'Dea, C.~P., \& Owen, F.~N.\ 2003,
349: \aj, 125, 478
350: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(2006)]{lau06a} Lauer, T. R., et al. 2006a, submitted (astro-ph/0606739)
351: \bibitem[Macchetto et al.(1997)]{mac97} Macchetto, F., Marconi, A., Axon, D.~J., Capetti, A., Sparks, W., \& Crane, P.\ 1997,
352: \apj, 489, 579
353: \bibitem[Marconi \& Hunt(2003)]{mandh03} Marconi, A., \& Hunt, L. K., 2003, \apj, 589, L21
354: \bibitem[Merritt(1984a)]{mer84a} Merritt, D.\ 1984a, \apj, 276, 26
355: \bibitem[Merritt(1984b)]{mer84b} Merritt, D.\ 1984b, \apjl, 280, L5
356: \bibitem[Oemler(1976)]{oem76} Oemler, A., Jr.\ 1976, \apj, 209, 693
357: \bibitem[Paturel et al.(2003)]{pat03} Paturel, G., Petit, C., Prugniel, P., Theureau, G., Rousseau, J., Brouty, M., Dubois, P.,
358: \& Cambr{\'e}sy, L.\ 2003, \aap, 412, 45
359: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2002)]{pen02} Peng, C.~Y., Ho, L.~C., Impey, C.~D., \& Rix, H.-W.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 266
360: \bibitem[Postman \& Lauer(1995)]{pl95} Postman, M., \& Lauer, T.~R.\ 1995, \apj, 440, 28
361: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{sch98} Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
362: \bibitem[S{\'e}rsic(1963)]{ser63} S{\'e}rsic, J.~L.\ 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41
363: \bibitem[Tonry et al.(2001)]{ton01} Tonry, J.~L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J.~P., Ajhar, E.~A., Fletcher, A.~B., Luppino, G.~A.,
364: Metzger, M.~R., \& Moore, C.~B.\ 2001, \apj, 546, 681
365: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{tre02} Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, \apj, 574, 740
366: \end{thebibliography}
367:
368: \end{document}
369:
370: %%
371: %% End of file `ms.tex'.
372: