1988
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/232.2.239
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Low surface brightness galaxies in the Fornax Cluster: automated galaxy surface photometry - III

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
113
0
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 114 publications
(119 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
5
113
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the recent literature, pseudo-and classical bulges have frequently been divided at the Sérsic index n 2 sph = (e.g., Sani et al 2011;Beifiori et al 2012), although, from a selection of hundreds of disk galaxies imaged in the Kband, Graham & Worley (2008) observed no bimodality in the bulge Sérsic indices about n 2 sph = or any other value. While pseudo-bulges are expected to have exponential-like surface brightness profiles (n 1 sph  ), being disky components that formed from their surrounding exponential disks (e.g., Bardeen 1975;Hohl 1975;Combes & Sanders 1981;Combes et al 1990;Pfenniger & Friedli 1991), it has been shown that mergers can create bulges with n 2 sph < (e.g., Eliche-Moral et al 2011;Scannapieco et al 2011;Querejeta et al 2015), just as low-luminosity elliptical galaxies (not built from the secular evolution of a disk) are also well known to have n 2 sph < and even n 1 sph < (e.g., Davies et al 1988;Young & Currie 1994;Jerjen et al 2000). The use of the Sérsic index (in addition to rotation) to identify pseudo-bulges is thus a dangerous practice.…”
Section: Pseudo-versus Classical Bulgesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the recent literature, pseudo-and classical bulges have frequently been divided at the Sérsic index n 2 sph = (e.g., Sani et al 2011;Beifiori et al 2012), although, from a selection of hundreds of disk galaxies imaged in the Kband, Graham & Worley (2008) observed no bimodality in the bulge Sérsic indices about n 2 sph = or any other value. While pseudo-bulges are expected to have exponential-like surface brightness profiles (n 1 sph  ), being disky components that formed from their surrounding exponential disks (e.g., Bardeen 1975;Hohl 1975;Combes & Sanders 1981;Combes et al 1990;Pfenniger & Friedli 1991), it has been shown that mergers can create bulges with n 2 sph < (e.g., Eliche-Moral et al 2011;Scannapieco et al 2011;Querejeta et al 2015), just as low-luminosity elliptical galaxies (not built from the secular evolution of a disk) are also well known to have n 2 sph < and even n 1 sph < (e.g., Davies et al 1988;Young & Currie 1994;Jerjen et al 2000). The use of the Sérsic index (in addition to rotation) to identify pseudo-bulges is thus a dangerous practice.…”
Section: Pseudo-versus Classical Bulgesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the past two decades, the Sérsic model has become the standard for describing the surface brightness profiles of early-type galaxies and bulges of spiral galaxies (e.g. Davies et al 1988;Caon et al 1993;D'Onofrio et al 1994;Cellone et al 1994;Andredakis et al 1995;Prugniel & Simien 1997;Möllenhoff & Heidt 2001;Graham & Guzmán 2003;Allen et al 2006;Méndez-Abreu et al 2008;Gadotti 2009). In the past few years, Sérsic-like models have also gained popularity as a model to describe the spherically averaged profiles for dark matter haloes.…”
Section: I(r)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of these is the Einasto (1965) profile, a three-dimensional version of the two-dimensional Sérsic (1968) profile used to describe the surface brightness of earlytype galaxies and the bulges of spiral galaxies (e.g. Davies et al 1988;Caon et al 1993;D'Onofrio et al 1994;Cellone et al 1994;Andredakis et al 1995;Prugniel & Simien 1997;Möllenhoff & Heidt 2001;Graham & Guzmán 2003;Graham et al 2006;Gadotti 2009). The Sérsic profile can be written as:…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%