The specific angular momenta of superthin galaxies: Cue to their origin?

Arunima Banerjee; Vikas Jadhav Y

arxiv: 1906.10039 · v1 · pith:ORTA3LSRnew · submitted 2019-06-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The specific angular momenta of superthin galaxies: Cue to their origin?

Vikas Jadhav Y , Arunima Banerjee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 17:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords superthin galaxiesspecific angular momentumlow surface brightness galaxiesdisc galaxiesspin parametergalaxy formationangular momentumstellar disc size

0 comments

The pith

Superthin galaxies show higher stellar specific angular momentum and disc sizes than ordinary bulgeless discs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper calculates the stellar specific angular momentum j_s for six superthin galaxies and nine other bulgeless low surface brightness galaxies using stellar photometry, HI surface density maps, and high-resolution HI rotation curves. Three superthins and seven LSBs lie above the 95.4 percent confidence band of the j_s-V_rot regression relation established for ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies. Superthins and LSBs also display systematically higher j_s and exponential disc scale length R_D at fixed stellar mass M_s. The authors conclude that a characteristically larger disc size distinguishes superthins and may account for their unusually high planar-to-vertical axes ratios. The median spin parameter λ reaches 0.13 plus or minus 0.01 in the superthin sample, an order of magnitude above the values found for LSBs and ordinary discs.

Core claim

Superthin galaxies may be distinguished by a characteristically larger disc size which could possibly explain the origin of its large planar-to-vertical axes ratio. The median spin parameter λ equals 0.13 plus or minus 0.01 for superthin galaxies, an order of magnitude higher than those of LSBs and ordinary disc galaxies.

What carries the argument

The stellar specific angular momentum j_s, computed from photometry and HI data, which sets the exponential disc scale length R_D and is tested against the j_s-V_rot and j_s-M_s relations for ordinary galaxies.

If this is right

Superthins and many LSBs possess larger disc sizes at given stellar mass than ordinary bulgeless discs.
The high b/a ratio of superthins can arise from this enlarged disc size rather than from other structural factors.
Superthin galaxies exhibit a median spin parameter λ of 0.13 plus or minus 0.01.
The elevated λ values point to distinct formation conditions for superthins relative to LSBs and ordinary discs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Galaxy formation simulations may need to produce a subset of low-density discs with unusually high angular momentum to match the observed superthin population.
Measuring λ for a larger sample of superthins could test whether the high value is a defining property of the class.
The offset in j_s may correlate with environment or accretion history in ways that current samples cannot yet resolve.

Load-bearing premise

The regression relation and 95.4 percent confidence band derived from ordinary bulgeless disk galaxies constitute the correct null hypothesis against which superthins and LSBs are compared.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same galaxies using uniform methods for measuring V_rot and M_s that places the superthin j_s values inside the 95.4 percent confidence band of the ordinary-galaxy relation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.10039 by Arunima Banerjee, Vikas Jadhav Y.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Plot of the specific angular momenta of the stellar discs js versus the asymptotic rotational velocities Vrot. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4% confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by 2.51 ± 0.72 and −2.76 ± 1.55 respectively. Superposed on the plot are the js versus Vrot data for the su… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Plot of the characteristic radius of an exponential stellar disc ∼ 1.68 RD, RD being the exponential stellar disc scale length versus specific angular momentum of the stellar disc js. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4% confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by 0.49±0.103 and −0.82±0.277 re… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: , we present a regression line fit to the jgas versus Vrot data for the ordinary bulgeless spirals (black line) using the data of Obreschkow & Glazebrook (2014) along with its 95.4% confidence band (short-dashed line). We also superpose the jg versus Vrot data for the superthins (filled triangles) and LSBs (solid spheres) on this plot. Interestingly, we note that unlike the stellar component, superthins … view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Plot of the specific angular momenta of the baryonic discs jb versus the asymptotic rotational velocities Vrot. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4% confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by 2.60 ± 1.16 and −2.83 ± 2.52 respectively. Superposed on the plot are the jb versus Vrot data for the s… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Plot of the characteristic radius of an exponential stellar disc ∼1.68 RD, RD being the exponential stellar disc scale length versus the stellar mass Ms. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4% confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by 0.42 ± 0.11 and −3.63 ± 1.05 respectively. Superposed on t… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Plot of the stellar specific angular momentum js versus the gas mass fraction Mg/Mb. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4% confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by 1.01 ± 1.37 and 3.21 ± 0.76 respectively. Superposed on the plot are the data for the superthins (solid triangles) and LSBs (so… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Plot of the specific angular momenta of the stellar discs js versus the asymptotic rotational velocities Vrot. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4% confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by 2.51 ± 0.72 and −2.76 ± 1.55 respectively . Superposed on the plot are the js versus Vrot data for the s… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Plot of the specific angular momenta of the stellar discs js versus the stellar mass Ms. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4% confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by 0.87±0.76 and −5.86±0.75 respectively. Superposed on the plot are the js versus Ms data for the superthins (solid triangles… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Plot of the specific angular momenta of the gas discs jg versus the stellar mass Mg. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4% confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by 0.83 ± 0.09 and −4.86 ± 0.89 respectively. Superposed on the plot are the jg versus Mg data for the superthins (solid triangles)… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Superthin galaxies are low surface brightness (LSB) bulgeless disc galaxies having stellar discs with unusually high planar-to-vertical axes ratio $b/a$ $>$ 10 - 20, the formation and evolution of which is not well-understood. We calculate the specific angular momenta of a sample of six superthins and nine other bulgeless LSBs using stellar photometry, atomic hydrogen (HI) surface density and high resolution HI rotation curves available in the literature. We find that the stellar specific angular mometum $j_{\rm{s}}$, and hence the stellar disc size given by the exponential stellar disc scale length R$_D$, of three superthins and seven LSBs lie above the 95.4 $\%$ confidence band of the $j_{\rm{s}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ regression line for ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies, $V_{\rm{rot}}$ being the asymptotic rotational velocity. Further, we find that superthins and LSBs have higher $j_{\rm{s}}$ and R$_D$ values for a given value of stellar mass $M_{\rm{s}}$ at high values of statistical significance, compared to ordinary disc galaxies. Therefore, we conclude, a superthin is may be distinguished by a characteristically larger disc size which could possibly explain the origin of its large planar-to-vertical axes ratio. Interestingly, we find that the median spin parameter $\lambda = \frac{ j_{\rm{stars}} } { {\sqrt(2) V_{\rm{vir}} R_{\rm{vir}} } }$, $V_{\rm{vir}}$ and $R_{\rm{vir}}$ being the virial velocity and virial radius of the galaxy respectively, is 0.13 $\pm$ 0.01 for superthin galaxies which is an order of magnitude higher than those of LSBs and ordinary disc galaxies, which may have important implications for the existence of superthin stellar discs in these low surface brightness galaxies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Superthins show higher j_s and lambda than ordinary discs in this compilation, but the offset rests on unverified consistency between heterogeneous literature measurements and the baseline regression.

read the letter

Superthins appear offset to higher j_s and disc size in this sample, with a median lambda of 0.13, but whether this holds depends on how well the literature values line up with the baseline regression. The paper takes the standard specific angular momentum diagnostics that have been used for ordinary bulgeless discs and applies them to six superthin galaxies plus nine other LSBs, all drawn from published HI rotation curves and stellar photometry. It reports that three superthins and seven LSBs fall above the 95.4% confidence band of the j_s-V_rot fit, and that both groups show statistically higher j_s and R_D at fixed M_s. The authors interpret the larger disc size as a possible reason for the extreme thinness, and note the high spin parameter as potentially relevant to formation in low surface brightness environments. This is a straightforward extension of existing tools to a new subclass. The work is honest in sticking to what the compiled data show without overclaiming mechanisms. The main limitation is the reliance on heterogeneous literature sources without any shown checks for consistency. The ordinary disc regression comes from other papers, so differences in how V_rot is defined, how stellar masses are calculated from photometry, or how j_s is integrated could produce an apparent offset. The sample of six is small, and the abstract gives no error budgets, selection criteria, or tests against inclination or distance errors. The lambda calculation uses standard virial conversions that may not apply directly to these systems. These issues make the central claim plausible but not yet verified. This paper is aimed at researchers focused on the formation of low surface brightness and superthin discs. A reader interested in angular momentum constraints on galaxy evolution would get a concrete observational point from it, even if incremental. It deserves to go to peer review, provided the full manuscript includes the robustness tests on the measurements that are missing from the abstract. Without those, it risks being too preliminary for a full paper.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compiles literature HI rotation curves, stellar photometry and HI surface densities for six superthin galaxies and nine bulgeless LSBs. It reports that three superthins and seven LSBs lie above the 95.4% confidence band of the j_s–V_rot regression for ordinary bulgeless discs, that both populations show statistically higher j_s and R_D at given M_s, and that the median spin parameter λ = j_stars / (√2 V_vir R_vir) equals 0.13 ± 0.01 for the superthins—an order of magnitude above the values for LSBs and ordinary discs—suggesting that characteristically larger disc sizes may explain the extreme b/a ratios.

Significance. If the elevated angular-momentum result survives verification of cross-sample measurement consistency, the work would supply a quantitative clue to the origin of superthin discs and would constrain angular-momentum acquisition in low-surface-brightness environments. The compilation of existing high-resolution HI data provides a useful first statistical indication, though the small sample (n=6) and reliance on heterogeneous literature values limit immediate impact.

major comments (3)

[Results section (comparison to regression)] The central claim that three superthins and seven LSBs lie above the 95.4% confidence band of the ordinary-bulge-less-disc j_s–V_rot regression (and that both populations have higher j_s, R_D at fixed M_s) is load-bearing; the manuscript provides no demonstration that asymptotic V_rot, stellar-mass M_s and the radial integration yielding j_s are extracted on an equivalent footing between the superthin/LSB literature compilations and the separate ordinary-disc regression baseline. Systematic differences in velocity extraction, M/L ratios or radial weighting would shift the points relative to the band without reflecting an intrinsic difference.
[Spin-parameter paragraph (abstract and discussion)] The reported median λ = 0.13 ± 0.01 (n=6) is an order of magnitude higher than literature values for LSBs and ordinary discs; the calculation adopts the standard definition but supplies neither the explicit V_vir–R_vir conversion adopted for these low-surface-brightness systems nor any sensitivity test to halo-mass assumptions, both of which are critical for the claimed offset.
[Methods / sample description] No error budgets, sample-selection criteria or robustness checks against distance, inclination or M/L uncertainties are presented, despite the statistical offsets depending entirely on the compiled quantities.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract contains typographical errors: 'mometum' → 'momentum'; 'a superthin is may be' → 'a superthin may be'.
[Spin-parameter definition] Notation for the spin-parameter denominator (√2 V_vir R_vir) should be explicitly justified or referenced to the standard definition used in the literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, noting the revisions that will be incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results section (comparison to regression)] The central claim that three superthins and seven LSBs lie above the 95.4% confidence band of the ordinary-bulge-less-disc j_s–V_rot regression (and that both populations have higher j_s, R_D at fixed M_s) is load-bearing; the manuscript provides no demonstration that asymptotic V_rot, stellar-mass M_s and the radial integration yielding j_s are extracted on an equivalent footing between the superthin/LSB literature compilations and the separate ordinary-disc regression baseline. Systematic differences in velocity extraction, M/L ratios or radial weighting would shift the points relative to the band without reflecting an intrinsic difference.

Authors: The referee is correct that explicit cross-sample consistency checks are needed to support the load-bearing claim. While the literature sources for the superthin and LSB samples employ high-resolution HI curves and standard radial integration methods comparable to those underlying the ordinary-disc regression, the manuscript does not demonstrate this equivalence in detail. We will add a subsection (or table) in the Methods/Results that lists the exact sources, velocity extraction procedures, M/L assumptions, and radial weighting for each quantity, together with a brief discussion of why systematic shifts are unlikely to explain the offsets. revision: yes
Referee: [Spin-parameter paragraph (abstract and discussion)] The reported median λ = 0.13 ± 0.01 (n=6) is an order of magnitude higher than literature values for LSBs and ordinary discs; the calculation adopts the standard definition but supplies neither the explicit V_vir–R_vir conversion adopted for these low-surface-brightness systems nor any sensitivity test to halo-mass assumptions, both of which are critical for the claimed offset.

Authors: We will revise the spin-parameter section to supply the explicit conversion: V_vir and R_vir are obtained from the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation to estimate halo mass, followed by standard NFW halo relations at the adopted cosmology. A sensitivity analysis varying halo concentration and mass-to-light ratio by ±20 % will be added to show that the median λ remains an order of magnitude above comparison values under these variations. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods / sample description] No error budgets, sample-selection criteria or robustness checks against distance, inclination or M/L uncertainties are presented, despite the statistical offsets depending entirely on the compiled quantities.

Authors: We agree that these elements are required. The revised manuscript will expand the Methods section to state the sample-selection criteria (bulgeless LSBs with b/a > 10), provide error budgets for distance, inclination, and M/L, and include robustness checks in which these parameters are varied within their uncertainties to confirm that the reported j_s and R_D offsets remain statistically significant. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations are independent computations from external data

full rationale

The paper computes stellar specific angular momentum j_s directly from stellar photometry, HI surface densities and rotation curves using standard integration methods. The j_s–V_rot regression baseline and 95.4% confidence band are taken from separate literature on ordinary bulgeless discs. The spin parameter λ is evaluated from its textbook definition λ = j_stars / (√2 V_vir R_vir) with V_vir, R_vir obtained via standard halo scaling relations. None of these steps reduce by construction to the target claims (outlier status of superthins, higher median λ); all quantities are measured or cited externally. No self-citations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or self-definitional loops appear in the reported chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on (1) the validity of the ordinary-galaxy regression as baseline, (2) the assumption that published HI rotation curves trace the stellar specific angular momentum, and (3) standard conversions from observed quantities to virial halo parameters. No new free parameters are introduced beyond those implicit in the cited regression; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

regression slope and intercept of j_s versus V_rot for ordinary bulgeless disks
Defines the 95.4 % confidence band used to identify outliers; parameters are fitted to the comparison sample.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Published high-resolution HI rotation curves accurately represent the circular velocity at all radii needed for stellar specific angular momentum integration.
Invoked when computing j_s from the rotation curves listed in the abstract.
domain assumption Stellar mass M_s and exponential scale length R_D are reliably recovered from optical photometry without significant dust or population corrections.
Required for placing galaxies on the j_s–M_s and R_D–M_s planes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5898 in / 1565 out tokens · 31350 ms · 2026-05-25T17:10:07.679098+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

& Jog, C

Banerjee, A. & Jog, C. J. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 582 Banerjee A., Matthews L. D., Jog C. J., 2010, NewA, 15, 89

work page 2013
[2]

1967, ApJ, 150, 461

Barbanis, B., Woltjer, L. 1967, ApJ, 150, 461

work page 1967
[3]

, Chengalur, J.N

Begum, A. , Chengalur, J.N. 2004, A&A, 424, 509

work page 2004
[4]

V., Kautsch, S

Bizyaev, D. V., Kautsch, S. J., Sotnikova, N. Ya., Reshet- nikov, V. P., Mosenkov, A. V., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3784

work page 2017
[5]

1960, ApJ, 131, 293

Brandt, J.C. 1960, ApJ, 131, 293

work page 1960
[6]

2005, ApJ, 626, 59

Bureau, M., Athanassoula, E. 2005, ApJ, 626, 59

work page 2005
[7]

Chowdhury, A., Chengalur, J. N. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3856

work page 2017
[8]

Schneider, D. P. 1997, AJ, 114, 2178 Efstathiou G., Lake G., Negroponte J., 1982, MNRAS, 199, 1069

work page 1997
[9]

& Banerjee, A

Garg, P. & Banerjee, A. 2017, MNRAS, Ghosh S., Jog, C. J. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 929

work page 2017
[10]

Pakmor, R., Campbell, D. J. R., Jenkins, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 199 Karachentsev I., 1989, AJ, 97, 1566

work page 2016
[11]

I., Melnyk, O

Makarov, D. I., Melnyk, O. V. 2016, AstBu, 71, 1 Kautsch S. J., 2009, PASP, 121, 1297 Khoperskov A., Bizyaev D., Tiurina N., Butenko M., 2010, Astron. Nachr., 331, 731

work page 2016
[12]

2018, MN- RAS, 479, 228

Kurapati, S., Chengalur, J.N., & Pustilnik, S. 2018, MN- RAS, 479, 228

work page 2018
[13]

D., Uson, Juan M

Matthews, L. D., Uson, Juan M. 2008, ApJ, 688, 237

work page 2008
[14]

Wilcots, E. M. 2000, BAAS, 32, 1459

work page 2000
[15]

2014, ApJ, 784, 26 O’Brien J

Obreschkow, D., Glazebrook, K. 2014, ApJ, 784, 26 O’Brien J. C., Freeman, K. C., van der Kruit, P. C. 2010c, A&A, 515, 62

work page 2014
[16]

N., Banerjee, A., Chengalur, J.N

Patra, N. N., Banerjee, A., Chengalur, J.N. & Begum, A. 2014, MNRAS, 479, 5686 Peebles P. J. E., 1969, ApJ, 155, 393

work page 2014
[17]

Posti, L., Pezzulli, G., Fraternali, F., Di Teodoro, E. M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 232

work page 2018
[18]

2018 , arXiv180404663

Posti, L., Fraternali, F., di Teodoro, E., Pezzulli, G. 2018 , arXiv180404663

work page 2018
[19]

D., van Driel, W

Qu, Y., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., van Driel, W. 2011, A&A, 399, 879

work page 2011
[20]

D., Krusch, E., Bomans, D

Rosenbaum, S. D., Krusch, E., Bomans, D. J., Dettmar, R.-J. 2009, A&A, 504, 807

work page 2009
[21]

Uson, Juan M., Matthews, L. D. 2003, AJ, 125, 2455

work page 2003
[22]

Velazquez, H., White, S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 254

work page 1999
[23]

R., Mihos, J

Walker, I. R., Mihos, J. C., Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 460, 121 White S. D. M., 1984, ApJ, 286, 38

work page 1996
[24]

2018, arXiv180308056

Zoldan, A., De Lucia, G., Xie, L., Fontanot, F., Hirschmann, M. 2018, arXiv180308056

work page 2018
[25]

2011, ApJ, 740, 35 APPENDIX We study the Fall relation (1983) i.e

Kamphuis, P. 2011, ApJ, 740, 35 APPENDIX We study the Fall relation (1983) i.e. the correlation betwe en speciﬁc angular momentum and disc mass in the stellar, gas and baryonic discs in our superthin and LSB samples. In Figure 10, we plot the regression line ﬁt to the js - Ms data along with the 2- σor 95.4 % conﬁdence band for the ordi- nary discs, and s...

work page 2011

[1] [1]

& Jog, C

Banerjee, A. & Jog, C. J. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 582 Banerjee A., Matthews L. D., Jog C. J., 2010, NewA, 15, 89

work page 2013

[2] [2]

1967, ApJ, 150, 461

Barbanis, B., Woltjer, L. 1967, ApJ, 150, 461

work page 1967

[3] [3]

, Chengalur, J.N

Begum, A. , Chengalur, J.N. 2004, A&A, 424, 509

work page 2004

[4] [4]

V., Kautsch, S

Bizyaev, D. V., Kautsch, S. J., Sotnikova, N. Ya., Reshet- nikov, V. P., Mosenkov, A. V., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3784

work page 2017

[5] [5]

1960, ApJ, 131, 293

Brandt, J.C. 1960, ApJ, 131, 293

work page 1960

[6] [6]

2005, ApJ, 626, 59

Bureau, M., Athanassoula, E. 2005, ApJ, 626, 59

work page 2005

[7] [7]

Chowdhury, A., Chengalur, J. N. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3856

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Schneider, D. P. 1997, AJ, 114, 2178 Efstathiou G., Lake G., Negroponte J., 1982, MNRAS, 199, 1069

work page 1997

[9] [9]

& Banerjee, A

Garg, P. & Banerjee, A. 2017, MNRAS, Ghosh S., Jog, C. J. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 929

work page 2017

[10] [10]

Pakmor, R., Campbell, D. J. R., Jenkins, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 199 Karachentsev I., 1989, AJ, 97, 1566

work page 2016

[11] [11]

I., Melnyk, O

Makarov, D. I., Melnyk, O. V. 2016, AstBu, 71, 1 Kautsch S. J., 2009, PASP, 121, 1297 Khoperskov A., Bizyaev D., Tiurina N., Butenko M., 2010, Astron. Nachr., 331, 731

work page 2016

[12] [12]

2018, MN- RAS, 479, 228

Kurapati, S., Chengalur, J.N., & Pustilnik, S. 2018, MN- RAS, 479, 228

work page 2018

[13] [13]

D., Uson, Juan M

Matthews, L. D., Uson, Juan M. 2008, ApJ, 688, 237

work page 2008

[14] [14]

Wilcots, E. M. 2000, BAAS, 32, 1459

work page 2000

[15] [15]

2014, ApJ, 784, 26 O’Brien J

Obreschkow, D., Glazebrook, K. 2014, ApJ, 784, 26 O’Brien J. C., Freeman, K. C., van der Kruit, P. C. 2010c, A&A, 515, 62

work page 2014

[16] [16]

N., Banerjee, A., Chengalur, J.N

Patra, N. N., Banerjee, A., Chengalur, J.N. & Begum, A. 2014, MNRAS, 479, 5686 Peebles P. J. E., 1969, ApJ, 155, 393

work page 2014

[17] [17]

Posti, L., Pezzulli, G., Fraternali, F., Di Teodoro, E. M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 232

work page 2018

[18] [18]

2018 , arXiv180404663

Posti, L., Fraternali, F., di Teodoro, E., Pezzulli, G. 2018 , arXiv180404663

work page 2018

[19] [19]

D., van Driel, W

Qu, Y., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., van Driel, W. 2011, A&A, 399, 879

work page 2011

[20] [20]

D., Krusch, E., Bomans, D

Rosenbaum, S. D., Krusch, E., Bomans, D. J., Dettmar, R.-J. 2009, A&A, 504, 807

work page 2009

[21] [21]

Uson, Juan M., Matthews, L. D. 2003, AJ, 125, 2455

work page 2003

[22] [22]

Velazquez, H., White, S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 254

work page 1999

[23] [23]

R., Mihos, J

Walker, I. R., Mihos, J. C., Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 460, 121 White S. D. M., 1984, ApJ, 286, 38

work page 1996

[24] [24]

2018, arXiv180308056

Zoldan, A., De Lucia, G., Xie, L., Fontanot, F., Hirschmann, M. 2018, arXiv180308056

work page 2018

[25] [25]

2011, ApJ, 740, 35 APPENDIX We study the Fall relation (1983) i.e

Kamphuis, P. 2011, ApJ, 740, 35 APPENDIX We study the Fall relation (1983) i.e. the correlation betwe en speciﬁc angular momentum and disc mass in the stellar, gas and baryonic discs in our superthin and LSB samples. In Figure 10, we plot the regression line ﬁt to the js - Ms data along with the 2- σor 95.4 % conﬁdence band for the ordi- nary discs, and s...

work page 2011