![]() | ![]() |
Astron. Astrophys. 364, 26-42 (2000) 7. Discussion7.1. Field and cluster objectsSince our sample includes galaxies both from the field and from a cluster environment, we can investigate the eventual differences between these two subsamples. Following the conclusions of the authors, we will consider as cluster members the objects previously studied by Liu et al. (2000) and S97, and assume the rest of the sample to be representative of the ERO field population; the two subsamples include 14 and 27 objects respectively. The most remarkable difference between them is that most of the galaxies classified as irregular (5 out of 6) belong to the field population. On the other hand, the only irregular cluster object (n. 5 in Table 1) is neither diffuse nor characterized by two interacting components, but is rather a compact galaxy with an irregular core; also, its spectrum does not exhibit features typical of ongoing star formation (S97; again, one example of an apparently "old" object that does not resemble local ellipticals). We conclude that, if some starburst galaxies are present among the EROs, they are not likely to be found in clusters. Considering only the field population, the fraction of irregular galaxies is only slightly increased (19%) with respect to our previous estimate. For what concerns the fraction of non-exponential profiles, it is roughly the same for the two subsamples, again close to 80% for the high-signal objects. In Table 4 we report a summary of the sample statistics. In
the upper half of the table we consider the whole sample, divided into
irregular galaxies, exponentials, and de Vaucouleurs. In the lower
half we consider only the high-signal subsample, for which we
distinguish between Table 4. ERO morphology: a summary 7.2. Red exponential galaxiesAs we have seen, some of our galaxies appear to be compact exponentials (see also Stiavelli & Treu 2000). of course, these objects cannot be classified as typical bright ellipticals if we use the local objects as a reference; on the other hand, the regularity of their surface brightness distributions tends to exclude the hypothesis of heavily reddened objects. The existence of this subclass, therefore, implies that the ERO population is apparently more composite than previously thought, a conclusion also emerging from the work by Liu et al. (2000), Stiavelli & Treu (2000) and Corbin et al. (2000). The possibility that such objects are undergoing an intermediate post-merging phase that eventually ends up in an elliptical galaxy is in contrast with the simplest monolithic collapse model, in which all ellipticals are formed at high redshift. Its implications in the framework of the different scenarios for galaxy formation certainly deserve further, more detailed investigation. At the same time, we cannot exclude that some ongoing star formation, suitably distributed throughout the galaxy, might transform an elliptical-like bringhtness distribution into one of the kind observed. Again, this hypothesis could be tested by a better characterization of the stellar content of these exponential objects. 7.3. Morphology and colorsIn Fig. 9 we plot the median
The dotted line represents the average
The adopted 7.4. The distribution of nWe can consider the subsample of galaxies whose best shape index
n is In the top panel of Fig. 10 we plot our distribution for the
high-signal subsample with no correction applied to the derived
n values (thick solid line). The dotted line is the same
distribution, corrected for the systematic effect described in
Sect. 5 (Eq. 1). In the bottom panel we plot the
distributions for the Virgo cluster and the Coma cluster. Quite
surprising, the two "local" histograms appear rather different, with
the Virgo distribution extended up to large n values, and
clearly peaked at
7.5. The Kormendy relationScaling relations represent a powerful tool to investigate the evolution of galaxies at high redshift; in the case of elliptical galaxies, the Kormendy Relation between effective surface brightness and radius is relatively easy to build for a sample of ellipticals, when a detailed analysis of the brightness distributions and an accurate measure of the redshifts are available. Previous studies of this kind (for example Fasano et al. 1998; Ziegler et al. 1999 - Z99 hereafter; Roche et al. 1998) observed, as expected, an increase of the rest-frame surface brightness with redshift, but the type of evolution implied (passive or partially active) is not yet well constrained by the models. For 6 of our We have used the 6 spectroscopic redshifts to derive the rest-frame
parameters of the relative galaxies, following the prescriptions
outlined in Z99; in particular, the observed F814W and H160W surface
brightnesses have been corrected for the cosmological dimming, and
transformed to the rest-frame B band. The corrections
(Pozzetti, private communication) are evaluated for different
cosmologies and spectral templates, using the models described in
Pozzetti et al. (1998). The observed luminosities have been corrected
for the Galactic extinction using the results by Schlegel et al.
(1998). In Fig. 11 we plot the rest-frame Kormendy Relation for
the 6 selected galaxies, derived adopting
An upwards shift of the data points with respect to the local
relation is evident: a line with the same slope fitted to the data
(the dotted one in Fig. 11) yields a difference of 1.5
consistent with the constant-slope hypothesis. The possible slight steepening of this relation should be considered with caution, both because of the very few data points, and because of possible selection effects (for example, a set of galaxies selected in a narrow range of redshift and luminosity necessarily tends to exhibit a slope of 5). A comparison with published results shows that the measured shift
in surface brightness is consistent with the predictions of
evolutionary models for elliptical galaxies (for example, with the
Pure Luminosity Evolution models considered by Roche et al. 1998), as
well as with the trends of luminosity and surface brightness vs.
z observed at lower redshifts. Z99, for example, find a
difference of 0.8 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() © European Southern Observatory (ESO) 2000 Online publication: December 15, 2000 ![]() |