1: %\documentclass[aasms4]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
4:
5: \shorttitle{Generalisations of the Tully-Fisher relation for early and
6: late-type galaxies}
7:
8: \shortauthors{De Rijcke, Zeilinger, Dejonghe, Hau, Prugniel}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{Generalisations of the Tully-Fisher relation for early and
13: late-type galaxies \altaffilmark{1}}
14:
15: \author{Sven De Rijcke\altaffilmark{2},
16: Werner. W. Zeilinger\altaffilmark{3}, George
17: K. T. Hau\altaffilmark{4}, P. Prugniel\altaffilmark{5}, Herwig
18: Dejonghe\altaffilmark{2}}
19: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations collected at the European
20: Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile (ESO Large Program
21: 165.N~0115), and the Observatoire de Haute-Provence}
22: \altaffiltext{2}{Sterrenkundig Observatorium, Universiteit Gent,
23: Krijgslaan 281, S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium, {\sf
24: sven.derijcke@UGent.be}, {\sf herwig.dejonghe@UGent.be}} \altaffiltext{3}{Institut f\"ur
25: Astronomie, Universit\"at Wien, T\"urkenschanzstra{\ss}e 17,
26: A-1180 Wien, Austria, {\sf zeilinger@astro.univie.ac.at}}
27: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, Durham University, South
28: Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, {\sf george.hau@durham.ac.uk}}
29: \altaffiltext{5}{Universit\'e de Lyon, Lyon, F-69000, France;
30: Universit\'e Lyon~1, Villeurbanne, F-69622, France; Centre de
31: Recherche Astronomique de Lyon, Observatoire de Lyon, 9
32: Av. Charles Andr\'e, Saint-Genis Laval, F-69561, France; CNRS, UMR
33: 5574; Ecole Normale Sup\'erieure de Lyon, Lyon, France; GEPI
34: Observatoire de Paris-Meudon, 5 place Jules Janssen, Meudon,
35: F-92195, France, {\sf prugniel@obs.univ-lyon1.fr}}
36:
37: %\altaffiltext{5}{CRAL-Observatoire de Lyon,
38: % 9 Av. C. Andr\'e, 69561 Saint-Genis Laval, France}
39: \begin{abstract}
40: We study the locus of dwarf and giant early and late-type galaxies on
41: the Tully-Fisher relation (TFR), the stellar mass Tully-Fisher
42: relation (sTFR) and the so-called baryonic or H{\sc i} gas+stellar
43: mass Tully-Fisher relation (gsTFR). We show that early-type and
44: late-type galaxies, from dwarfs to giants, trace different yet
45: approximately parallel TFRs. Surprisingly, early-type and late-type
46: galaxies trace a single yet curved sTFR over a range of 3.5 orders of
47: magnitude in stellar mass. Moreover, {\em all} galaxies trace a
48: single, linear gsTFR, over 3.5 orders of magnitude in H{\sc i}
49: gas+stellar mass. Dwarf ellipticals, however, lie slightly below the
50: gsTFR. This may indicate that early-type dwarfs, contrary to the
51: late-types, have lost their gas, e.g. by galactic winds or
52: ram-pressure stripping. Overall, environment only plays a secondary
53: role in shaping these relations, making them a rather ``clean''
54: cosmological tool. $\Lambda$CDM simulations predict roughly the
55: correct slopes for these relations.
56:
57: \end{abstract} \keywords{galaxies: dwarf--galaxies: kinematics and dynamics--galaxies: structure}
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60: \label{sec:intro}
61:
62: The Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) relates the intrinsic luminosity to
63: the maximum rotation velocity of the gas, $v_{\rm rot}$, a proxy for
64: the circular velocity, of late-type galaxies \citep{tf77}. It reflects
65: the equilibrium state of late-type galaxies but, unlike the
66: fundamental plane of elliptical galaxies, which is a three-parameters
67: relation \citep{dd87,ps96}, has only two parameters, implying
68: additional relations between the observational characteristics. Still
69: for gas-rich late-type galaxies, the TFR has been generalised to a
70: relation between $v_{\rm rot}$ and stellar mass (the stellar-mass TFR
71: or sTFR) and between $v_{\rm rot}$ and H{\sc i} gas+stellar mass (the
72: baryonic TFR or gsTFR in our notation) \citep{g00}. These relations
73: are the subject of very active theoretical and observational
74: work. E.g., \cite{ps06} present simulations of the evolution of the
75: TFR of massive late-types ($v_{\rm rot} \gtrsim 100$~km/s) and show
76: that while the TFR undergoes strong luminosity evolution, the sTFR and
77: gsTFR have remained constant since $z \approx 1$. To test for any
78: possible environmental influences, these authors switched off
79: star-formation in a disk galaxy by removing all its halo gas. After
80: some fading and reddening, this galaxy ends up slightly below the
81: B-band TFR but remains on the sTFR and gsTFR. \cite{t06} have
82: simulated the evolution of the sTFR and gsTFR of dwarf galaxies
83: ($v_{\rm rot} \lesssim 100$~km/s). Again, little evolution of these
84: relations with redshift is found. These authors predict a steepening
85: of the sTFR slope below a stellar mass of $\sim 10^8\,M_\odot$ while
86: the gsTFR is expected to have a constant slope.
87:
88: If instead of the observed rotation we consider the circular velocity
89: characterizing the gravitational potential, these relations can be
90: extended to any type of galaxies, in particular to giant and dwarf
91: ellipticals (dEs) which are not dominated by rotation. This
92: generalization would allow to probe further the similarities of the
93: dark-matter distribution of early- and late-type galaxies that were
94: already investigated by \cite{be93}. The rotation curves of
95: ellipticals cannot readily be observed since they contain little or no
96: H{\sc i} \citep{co03,b05}. \cite{k01} and \cite{mb01} determined the
97: circular velocities of bright ellipticals using dynamical
98: models. \cite{vz04a} measured stellar rotation curves for a sample of
99: 16 flattened Virgo dEs. These authors found dEs to adhere closely to
100: the TFR of gas-rich dwarf and spiral galaxies. However, they did not
101: correct for asymmetric drift, which, for dEs, can be as large as the
102: velocity dispersion. In order to obtain more reliable rotation curves
103: of dEs, we constructed dynamical models for 13 dEs from the Fornax
104: Cluster, nearby southern groups, and the Local Group, to stellar
105: kinematics out to $1-2$~R$_{\rm e}$. The Local Group dEs were observed
106: with the OHP 1.93-m telescope \citep{sp02}. The other dEs were
107: observed in the course of ESO Large Programme 165.N~0115 (see
108: e.g. \cite{dr01}). We use the observed surface brightness
109: distribution, the mean velocity, the velocity dispersion, and, if
110: available, the central fourth order moment of the line-of-sight
111: velocity distributions calculated from the kinematic parameters up to
112: $h_4$ \citep{vf93}, as data. A detailed account of the modeling method
113: can be found in \cite{dz88}, \cite{de96}, \cite{dr04}, and
114: \cite{dr06}. In \cite{dr04}, the model for FS373 is discussed; in
115: \cite{dr06}, we present the models for NGC147, NGC185, and NGC205
116: (including a technical description of the modeling method, a
117: presentation of the data, and a comparison of the models with the
118: data). We can define the range of models, and hence mass
119: distributions, that are consistent with the data and determine the
120: best fitting model. The strong dependence of the model mass profile,
121: and consequently the corresponding circular velocity curve, on the
122: velocity dispersion profiles makes estimates of $v_{\rm circ}$ based
123: on dynamical models much less sensitive to the unknown inclination
124: than $v_{\rm circ}$ estimates based on direct measurements of stellar
125: rotation curves. There remains the caveat that $v_{\rm circ}$
126: estimates derived from dynamical models are by construction to some
127: extent model dependent and are the result of the non-trivial
128: conversion of stellar kinematics into a dark-matter density profile.
129:
130: The new data for the 13 dEs are presented in Table \ref{tab1}. $v_{\rm
131: circ}$ is the maximum circular velocity of the best fitting model;
132: $v_{\rm circ, low}$ and $v_{\rm circ, up}$ are the lowest and highest
133: maximum circular velocities of models that are consistent with the
134: data at the 90\% confidence level. All velocities are expressed in
135: km/s. $M_{\rm B}$ and $M_{\rm Ks}$ are the B and 2MASS Ks band
136: absolute magnitudes, respectively. The maximum extent of the kinematic
137: data in units of the half-light radius is indicated by $R_{\rm
138: data}/R_{\rm e}$. The dEs with ``FCC'' designations are taken from the
139: \citet{f89} Fornax Cluster Catalog; ``FS'' refers to the \citet{fs90}
140: catalog of southern groups; NGC5898\_DW1 and NGC5898\_DW2 are two dEs
141: in the NGC5898 group \citep{dr05}. Throughout this paper, we use
142: $H_0=70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$.
143:
144:
145:
146: \section{The Tully-Fisher relation}
147: \label{sec:TF}
148:
149: The B-band TFRs traced by early and late-type galaxies are plotted in
150: the left panel of Fig. \ref{tf}. The black spiral symbols represent
151: late-type galaxies taken from \cite{tp00} (TP00), \cite{c00} (C00),
152: \cite{g05} (M05), and \cite{g06} (G06). If galaxies appear in more
153: than one data set, we use only the TP00 data. Based on 115 galaxies,
154: TP00 find $\log(L_{\rm B}) = 3.84 + 2.91 \log(v_{\rm circ})$, with
155: $L_{\rm B}$ expressed in solar B-band luminosities and $v_{\rm circ}$
156: in km~s$^{-1}$. We fitted a straight line to the combined TP00 and M05
157: data sets, taking into account the errors on the luminosities
158: $\log(L_{\rm B})$ and on the circular velocities $v_{\rm circ}$, using
159: the routine {\tt fitexy} of \cite{pr92}. The diagonal elements of the
160: covariance matrix are used as approximations of the variances of the
161: regression coefficients. Going back to the original papers from which
162: the M05 data set is compiled, the average error on $v_{\rm circ}$ is
163: $\sim 10$~km~s$^{-1}$. We adopt a 15\% error on the total luminosity,
164: roughly accounting for the various sources of statistical and
165: systematic errors. Limiting ourselves to the 128 galaxies brighter
166: than $\log(L_{\rm B}) = 9.5$, or $M_{\rm B} = -18$~mag, we find the
167: relation
168: \begin{equation}
169: \log(L_{\rm B}) = (3.42 \pm 0.28) + (3.09 \pm 0.12) \log(v_{\rm circ}).
170: \end{equation}
171: At lower luminosities, the situation becomes very unclear. The M05
172: late-types fall systematically below the TFR whereas the G06 galaxies
173: lie above it. This may be due to an increased scatter about the TFR at
174: low luminosities. \cite{c00} note that at $\log(L_{\rm B}) \approx 8$,
175: turbulent gas motions start dominating the ordered rotation, causing
176: the scatter about the TFR to increase dramatically. They also suggest
177: that at that point the notion of a thin, well-aligned gas disk might
178: break down. On the other hand, even if low-mass galaxies are supported
179: by turbulence rather than by rotation, one would expect some kind of
180: TFR to persist, even though the underlying equilibrium of these
181: fainter systems might be different.
182:
183: We fitted a straight line to the data of the early-type galaxies,
184: taking into account the errors on the luminosities $\log(L_{\rm B})$
185: and on the circular velocities $v_{\rm circ}$. This data-set consists
186: of the luminosities and the circular velocities of bright ellipticals,
187: estimated by \cite{k01} (K00) and \cite{mb01} (MB01) from spherical
188: dynamical models, and dEs from \cite{dr05} and \cite{dr06} (D06). In
189: case where galaxies appear in both the K00 and MB01 data sets, we
190: opted to use the K00 data because these models allow for a radially
191: varying anisotropy. We note that the K00 and MB01 $v_{\rm circ}$
192: estimates of overlapping galaxies are in good agreement. For the
193: luminosities, as for the late-type galaxies, we assume a 15\% error;
194: for the circular velocities, we use the 90\% confidence level
195: uncertainties given by the various authors. We find that the TFR of
196: the early-type galaxies can be well represented by a single power-law
197: over 3 decades in luminosity:
198: \begin{equation}
199: \log(L_{\rm B}) = (3.15 \pm 0.63) + (2.97 \pm 0.26) \log(v_{\rm circ}).
200: \end{equation}
201: Within the error bars, the B-band TFRs of early-type and late-type
202: galaxies have the same slope. In the dE-regime, at about $\log(L_{\rm
203: B}) \approx 8.5$, or $M_{\rm B} = -16$~mag, late and early-type dwarfs
204: essentially overlap in a $\log(L_{\rm B})$ versus $\log(v_{\rm circ})$
205: diagram. In the B-band, ellipticals, in the regime defined by
206: $\log(L_{\rm B}) \approx 8- 11$, or $M_{\rm B} = -14.5$ to $-22$~mag,
207: are about a factor of $\sim 4$, or about 1.5~mag, fainter than spiral
208: galaxies with the same $v_{\rm circ}$.
209:
210:
211: The K-band TFR of early and late-type galaxies is plotted in the right
212: panel of Fig. \ref{tf}, using 2MASS Ks-band magnitudes for the dwarf
213: and giant early-type galaxies. TP00 find $\log(L_{\rm K}) = 2.87 +
214: 3.51 \log(v_{\rm circ})$ for the K-band TFR of late-type galaxies. Our
215: fit to the K-band TFR of the D06, K00, and MB01 galaxies yields
216: \begin{equation}
217: \log(L_{\rm K}) = (2.44 \pm 0.35) + (3.46 \pm 0.15) \log(v_{\rm
218: circ}). \label{Rtfr}
219: \end{equation}
220: In the K-band, ellipticals are roughly a factor of 3, or $\sim
221: 1.2$~mag, fainter than late-types with the same $v_{\rm circ}$.
222:
223: \section{The stellar mass Tully-Fisher relation}
224: \label{sec:STFM}
225:
226: Going from the well-known TFR to the stellar mass Tully-Fisher
227: relation (sTFR) requires the conversion of luminosities, and, if
228: available, colours, to stellar masses, $M_{\rm s}$. \cite{bd01} have
229: fitted a suite of spectrophotometric disk evolution models to a set of
230: observed properties of late-type galaxies. The acceptable models
231: produce a tight correlation between the stellar mass-to-light ratio
232: ($M/L$) and colour. Alternatively, one can use the stellar $M/L$ that
233: gives the best MOND fit to the rotation curves or use the maximum disk
234: $M/L$ \citep{sm02}. These $M/L$ estimates generally agree to within of
235: a factor of 2. In short, the $M/L$s and stellar masses
236: of late-type galaxies can be estimated straightforwardly from their
237: colours or rotation curves. Here, we use the $M/L$ based on the
238: properties of the stellar population (colours, ages,
239: metallicities). The uncertainty on $M_{\rm s}$, which is the combined
240: uncertainty on $L_{\rm B}$ and $M/L$, can be quite substantial and we
241: estimate it to be of the order of 100\%, on average.
242:
243: No easy-to-use tool for estimating $M/L$s of early-type galaxies
244: exists. However, the mass-metal\-licity relation of early-type
245: galaxies is observationally well constrained, from the faintest dwarfs
246: up to the brightest giants, using either luminosity
247: \citep{m98,b93,gr03} or velocity dispersion \citep{pr04,t05} as a
248: substitute for galaxy mass. The thoretical predictions for this
249: relation and the observations are in reasonably good agreement
250: \citep{ny04,dl06}. We tried different methods to calculate $M/L$. {\em
251: (i)} We fit a 4$^{\rm th}$ order polynomial to the empirical
252: luminosity-metallicity relation of \cite{ny04} in order to estimate
253: the metallicities of the galaxies in the K00, MB01, and D06 data
254: sets. Plugging this metallicity, along with an average age of 10~Gyr
255: \citep{r01}, in the SSP-models of \cite{v96} or \cite{bc03} yields the
256: B-band $M/L$. {\em (ii)} For the giant ellipticals, one can use the
257: relation $\log(M_{\rm s}) = 0.63 + 4.52 \times \log(\sigma)$ of
258: \cite{t05} between stellar mass $M_{\rm s}$, expressed in $M_\odot$,
259: and velocity dispersion $\sigma$, expressed in km/s, or,
260: alternatively, {\em (iii)} the empirical metallicity and age
261: relations, ${\rm [}Z/H{\rm ]} = -1.06 + 0.55 \times \log(\sigma)$ and
262: $\log(t/{\rm Gyr})=0.46+0.238\times \log(\sigma)$, of \cite{t05} in
263: combination with the \cite{v96} or \cite{bc03} models. We found all
264: methods to be in excellent agreement. They have systematic offsets
265: much smaller than the errorbars on the datapoints and yield sTFR
266: slopes that agree to within the parameter uncertainties (see below).
267: We also converted the 2MASS Ks-magnitudes into $M_{\rm s}$ using the
268: \cite{bc03} models.
269: %As a final sanity check, we calculated the Ks-band $M/L$ and converted
270: %the 2MASS Ks-magnitudes into $M_{\rm s}$ using the \cite{bc03}
271: %models.
272: This gave results that were entirely consistent with the sTFR based on
273: the B-band data. For the remainder, we adopt approach {\em (iii)} for
274: the giant ellipticals and approach {\em (i)} for the dEs.
275:
276: The sTFRs of early and late-type galaxies are plotted in the left
277: panel of Fig. \ref{mass}. Both early and late-type galaxies trace a
278: single yet curved sTFR over 3.5 orders of magnitude in stellar mass.
279: For all galaxies in the range $\log(M_{\rm s}) \approx 9.0-12.0$ we
280: find
281: \begin{equation}
282: \log(M_{\rm s}) = (3.08 \pm 0.20) + (3.27 \pm 0.09) \log(v_{\rm circ}).
283: \label{stfr_all1}
284: \end{equation}
285: Using the $M_{\rm s}-\sigma$ relation of \cite{t05} yields a sTFR
286: slope of $3.31 \pm 0.09$, consistent with eq. (\ref{stfr_all1}). This
287: is in good agreement with theoretical predictions
288: \citep{ps06,t06}. The curvature of the sTFR is at least partially
289: responsible for \cite{g01} concluding that early type galaxies have
290: lower stellar masses than late-type galaxies at the same $v_{\rm
291: circ}$ if the sTFR of the late-types is extrapolated.
292:
293: \section{The H{\sc i} gas+stellar mass Tully-Fisher relation}
294:
295: The mass of the gaseous component in late-type galaxies follows from
296: 21~cm observations. We denote the sum of the stellar and H{\sc i} gas
297: mass by $M_{\rm g+s}$. Since early-type galaxies do not contain a
298: significant interstellar medium (see \citet{g01} and references
299: therein, \cite{b05}, \cite{co03}), the H{\sc i} gas+stellar mass
300: Tully-Fisher relation (gsTFR) of early-types to a good approximation
301: equals their sTFR. For the late-types, we use the data of \cite{g05}.
302:
303: The gsTFR of the early and late-type galaxies, presented in the right
304: panel of Fig. \ref{mass}, is less curved than the sTFR, and, for the whole
305: range $\log(M_{\rm g+s}) \approx 8.0-12.0$, can be fitted by the
306: linear relation
307: \begin{equation}
308: \log(M_{\rm g+s}) = (3.25 \pm 0.14) + (3.15 \pm 0.07) \log(v_{\rm
309: circ}).
310: \label{btfr_all}
311: \end{equation}
312: This can be compared with the gsTFR for giant and dwarf late-type
313: galaxies constructed by \cite{g06}, who find a slope $3.70 \pm
314: 0.15$. Our result agrees much better with the slope of 3 which one
315: would expect from the virial theorem, assuming a constant virial
316: overdensity and a constant baryon-to-total mass ratio
317: \citep{t06}. Late-types show a vertical scatter of 0.2 dex in $M_{\rm
318: g+s}$ about the gsTFR, giant early-types have a slightly larger
319: scatter of 0.3 dex. dEs are offset downwards by 0.4 dex, probably due
320: to them having lost part of their baryons by galactic winds
321: \citep{mf99,dr05} or ram-pressure stripping \citep{mb00}.
322:
323: \section{Conclusions}
324: \label{sec:disc}
325:
326: Early-type and late-type galaxies trace different yet approximately
327: parallel TFRs, with early-types being roughly 1.5~mag fainter in the
328: B-band than late-types for the same $v_{\rm circ}$. Surprisingly, all
329: galaxies trace the same sTFR and gsTFR over a range of 3.5 decades in
330: stellar or H{\sc i} gas+stellar mass. dEs lie slightly below the
331: general gsTFR. This seems to indicate that early-type dwarfs, which,
332: contrary to the late-types, reside in high-density environments have
333: lost their gas due to environmental influences, e.g. by galactic winds
334: or ram-pressure stripping. This also shows that the environment only
335: plays a secondary role in shaping these relations, making them a
336: ``clean'' cosmological tool. $\Lambda$CDM simulations are able to
337: account for the observed slopes of these relations.
338:
339: \acknowledgments WWZ acknowledges the support of the Austrian Science
340: Fund (project P14753). SDR is a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Fund for
341: Scientific Research - Flanders (Belgium)(F.W.O.). This publication
342: makes use of 2MASS data, a joint project of the University of
343: Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis
344: Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
345: Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
346: Foundation, the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is
347: operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
348: Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
349: Administration, and the LEDA database (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr). We
350: thank the anonymous referee for comments that helped to significantly
351: improve this Letter.
352:
353: \begin{thebibliography}{}
354: \bibitem[Bell \& de Jong(2001)]{bd01} Bell, E. F., de Jong, R. S.,
355: 2001, \apj, 550, 212
356: \bibitem[Bender et al.(1993)]{b93} Bender, R., Burstein, D., Faber,
357: S. M., 1993, ApJ, 411, 153
358: \bibitem[Bertola et al.(1993)]{be93} Bertola, F., Pizzella, A.,
359: Persic, M., Salucci, P., 1993, \apjl, 416, L45
360: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G. \& Charlot, S., 2003, \mnras,
361: 344, 1000
362: \bibitem[Buyle et al.(2005)]{b05} Buyle, P., De Rijcke, S.,
363: Michielsen, D., Baes, M., Dejonghe, H., 2005, \mnras, 360, 853
364: \bibitem[Conselice et al.(2003)]{co03} Conselice, C. J., O'Neil, K.,
365: Gallagher, J. S., Wyse, R. F. G., 2003, \apj, 591, 167
366: \bibitem[Cot\'e et al.(2000)]{c00} Cot\'e, S., Carignan, C., Freeman,
367: K., 2000, \aj, 120, 3027 (C00)
368: \bibitem[Dejonghe~\&~de Zeeuw~(1988)]{dz88} Dejonghe, H., \& de Zeeuw,
369: T., 1988, \apj, 329, 720
370: \bibitem[Dejonghe~et al.~(1996)]{de96} Dejonghe, H., De Bruyne,
371: V., Vauterin, P., Zeilinger, W. W., 1996, \aap, 306, 363
372: \bibitem[De Lucia et al.(2006)]{dl06} De Lucia, G., Springel, V.,
373: White, S. D. M., Croton, D., Kauffmann, G., 2006, \mnras, 366, 499
374: \bibitem[De Rijcke et al.(2001)]{dr01} De Rijcke, S., Dejonghe, H.,
375: Zeilinger, W. W., Hau, G. K. T., 2001, \apj, 559, L21
376: \bibitem[De Rijcke et al.(2004)]{dr04} De Rijcke, S., Dejonghe, H.,
377: Zeilinger, W. W., Hau, G. K. T., 2004, \aap, 426, 53
378: \bibitem[De Rijcke et al.(2005)]{dr05} De Rijcke, S., Michielsen, D.,
379: Dejonghe, H., Zeilinger, W. W., Hau, G. K. T., 2005, \aap, 438, 491
380: \bibitem[De Rijcke et al.(2006)]{dr06} De Rijcke, P. Prugniel,
381: F. Simien, H. Dejonghe, 2006, \mnras, 369, 1321
382: \bibitem[Djorgovski \& Davis(1987)]{dd87} Djorgovski, S. \& Davis,
383: M., 1987, \apj, 313, 59
384: \bibitem[Ferguson(1989)]{f89} Ferguson, H. C., 1989, AJ, 98, 367
385: \bibitem[Ferguson \& Sandage(1990)]{fs90} Ferguson, H. C. \& Sandage,
386: A., 1990, AJ, 101, 765
387: \bibitem[Geha et al.(2003)]{g03} Geha, M., Guhathakurta, P., van der
388: Marel, R. P., 2003, \aj, 126, 1794
389: \bibitem[Geha et al. (2006)]{g06} Geha, M., Blanton, M. R., Masjedi,
390: M., West, A. A., accepted by ApJ, astro-ph/0608295 (G06)
391: \bibitem[Gerhard et al.(2001)]{g01} Gerhard, O., Kronawitter, A., Saglia,
392: R. P., Bender, R., 2001, \aj, 121, 1936
393: \bibitem[Grebel et al.(2003)]{gr03} Grebel, E. K., Gallagher, J. S.,
394: III, Harbeck, D., 2003, AJ, 125, 1926
395: \bibitem[Kronawitter et al.(2000)]{k01} Kronawitter, A., Saglia,
396: R. P., Gerhard, O., Bender, R., 2000, A\&AS, 144, 53 (K01)
397: \bibitem[Mac Low \& Ferrara(1999)]{mf99} Mac Low, M. \& Ferrara, A.,
398: 1999, \apj, 513, 142
399: \bibitem[Magorrian \& Ballantyne(2001)]{mb01} Magorrian, J. \&
400: Ballantyne, D., 2001, \mnras, 322, 702 (MB01)
401: \bibitem[Mateo(1998)]{m98} Mateo, M. L. 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 435
402: \bibitem[McGaugh et al.(2000)]{g00} McGaugh, S., Schombert, J. M.,
403: Bothun, G. D., de Blok, W. J. G., 2000, \apj, 533, L99
404: \bibitem[McGaugh(2005)]{g05} McGaugh, S., 2005, \apj, 632, 859 (M05)
405: \bibitem[Michielsen et al.(2004)]{m04} Michielsen, D., De Rijcke, S.,
406: Zeilinger, W. W., Prugniel, P., Dejonghe, H., Roberts, S, 2004,
407: \mnras, 353, 1293
408: \bibitem[Mori \& Burkert(2000)]{mb00} Mori, M. \& Burkert, A., 2000,
409: \apj, 538, 559
410: \bibitem[Nagashima \& Yoshii(2004)]{ny04} Nagashima, M. \& Yoshii, Y.,
411: 2004, \apj, 610, 23
412: \bibitem[O'Sullivan et al.(2003)]{o03} O'Sullivan, E., Ponman, T. J.,
413: Collins, R. S., 2003, \mnras, 340, 1375
414: \bibitem[Porinari \& Sommer-Larsen(2006)]{ps06} Portinari, L. \&
415: Sommer-Larsen, J., 2006, submitted to \mnras, astro-ph/0606531
416: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{pr92} Press, W. H., Teutolsky, S. A.,
417: Vetterling, W. T., Flannery, B. P., 1992, Numerical recipes in C,
418: Cambridge University Press, New York, US
419: \bibitem[Proctor et al.(2004)]{pr04} Proctor, R. N., Forbes, D. A.,
420: Hau, G. K. T., Beasley, M. A., De Silva, G. M., Contreras, R.,
421: Terlevich, A. I., 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1381
422: \bibitem[Prugniel \& Simien (1996)]{ps96} Prugniel, P. \& Simien, F.,
423: 1996, \aap, 309, 749
424: \bibitem[Rakos et al.(2001)]{r01} Rakos, K., Schombert, J., Maitzen,
425: H. M., Prugovecki, S,. Odell, A., 2001 \aj, 121, 1974
426: \bibitem[Sanders \& McGaugh(2002)]{sm02} Sanders, R. H. \& McGaugh,
427: S. S. 2002, ARA\&A, 40, 263
428: \bibitem[Simien \& Prugniel(2002)]{sp02} Simien, F. \& Prugniel, Ph.,
429: 2002, \aap, 384, 371
430: \bibitem[Tassis et al.(2006)]{t06} Tassis, K. Kravtsov, A. V., Gnedin,
431: N. Y., submitted to \apj, astro-ph/0609763
432: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2005)]{t05} Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Bender,
433: R., Mendes de Oliviera, C., 2005, \apj, 621, 673
434: \bibitem[Tully \& Fisher(1977)]{tf77} Tully, R. B. \& Fisher, J. R.,
435: 1977, \aap, 54, 661
436: \bibitem[Tully \& Pierce(2000)]{tp00} Tully, R. B. \& Pierce, M. J.,
437: \apj, 533, 744 (TP00)
438: \bibitem[van der Marel \& Franx(1993)]{vf93} van der Marel, R. P. \& Franx,
439: M., 1993, \apj, 407, 525
440: \bibitem[van Zee et al.(2004)]{vz04a} van Zee, L., Skillman, E. D.,
441: Haynes, P., 2004, \aj, 128, 121
442: \bibitem[Vazdekis et al.(1996)]{v96} Vazdekis, A., Casuso, E.,
443: Peletier, R. F., Beckman, J. E., \apjs, 106, 307
444: \end{thebibliography}
445:
446: \clearpage
447:
448: \begin{table}
449: \begin{center}
450: \caption{Relevant data of the 13 dEs. \label{tab1}}
451: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|c|}
452: \tableline\tableline
453: Name & $v_{\rm circ, low}$ & $v_{\rm circ}$ & $v_{\rm circ, up}$ & $M_{\rm B}$ & $M_{\rm Ks}$ & $R_{\rm data}/R_{\rm e}$ \\
454: \tableline
455: FCC046 & 68 & 83 & 108 & -15.48 & -18.51 & 1.5 \\
456: FCC150 & 65 & 102 & 113 &-15.77 & -18.44 & 1.2 \\
457: %FCC204 & 136 & 167 & 186 & -16.75 & -19.63 \\
458: FCC207 & 74 & 85 & 113 & -15.20 & -18.50 & 1.2 \\
459: FCC245 & 50 & 65 & 80 & -15.47 & / & 0.5 \\
460: FCC266 & 70 & 85 & 100 & -15.62& -18.47 & 1.0 \\
461: FCC288 & 79 & 105 & 112 & -15.89& -18.76 & 2.0 \\
462: FS029 & 105 & 112 & 126 & -17.31& -20.95 & 2.0 \\
463: FS373 & 104 & 118 & 142 & -17.50& -20.82 & 1.6 \\
464: NGC5898\_DW1 & 61 & 71 & 81 &-16.75& -19.95 & 2.0 \\
465: NGC5898\_DW2 & 64 & 91 & 105 & -16.31& -18.35 & 2.0 \\
466: NGC147 & 25 & 41 & 57 & -14.44 & -16.95 & 1.2 \\
467: NGC185 & 42 & 49 & 54 & -14.67& -17.39 & 1.1 \\
468: NGC205 & 56 & 68 & 79 & -15.79 & -18.99 & 2.3 \\
469: \tableline
470: \end{tabular}
471: \end{center}
472: \end{table}
473:
474: \clearpage
475:
476: \begin{figure}
477: \vspace{6.25cm}
478: \special{hscale=90 vscale=90 hsize=570 vsize=540
479: hoffset=-40 voffset=-143 angle=0 psfile="f1a.eps"}
480: \special{hscale=90 vscale=90 hsize=570 vsize=240
481: hoffset=200 voffset=-143 angle=0 psfile="f1b.eps"}
482: \caption{Left panel : the B-band Tully-Fisher relation; right panel :
483: the K-band Tully-Fisher relation. Late-type galaxies are indicated by
484: spiral symbols. Early-types are indicated by circles (dEs) and
485: pentagons (Es). The adopted mean uncertainty on the luminosities is
486: indicated with a vertical errorbar. The origin of the data is
487: indicated in the figures (with spiral=TP00+C00+M05+G06). In the right
488: panel, only the TP00 data-set, being the only one late-type dataset
489: giving K-band luminosities, is included.
490: \label{tf}}
491: \end{figure}
492:
493: \clearpage
494:
495: \begin{figure}
496: \vspace{6.25cm}
497: \special{hscale=90 vscale=90 hsize=570 vsize=540
498: hoffset=-40 voffset=-143 angle=0 psfile="f2a.eps"}
499: \special{hscale=90 vscale=90 hsize=570 vsize=240 hoffset=200
500: voffset=-143 angle=0 psfile="f2b.eps"}
501: \caption{Left panel:~the stellar mass Tully-Fisher relation. The
502: symbols have the same meaning as in Fig. 1 (with
503: spiral=TP00+M05+G06). Right panel:~the H{\sc i} gas+stellar mass
504: Tully-Fisher relation. For the late-types, only M05 and G06 give all
505: the necessary ingredients to derive $M_{\rm g+s}$, so spiral=M05+G06
506: here.
507: \label{mass}}
508: \end{figure}
509:
510: \end{document}
511: