Scaling relations for globular cluster systems in early-type galaxies

Ana I. Ennis; Bruno J. De B\'ortoli; Juan Pablo Caso; Lilia P. Bassino

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 131 references

Scaling relations for globular cluster systems in early-type galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A galaxy's globular cluster system size tracks its dark halo size in nearly fixed proportions.

desk verdict Useful new GCS profile measurements for low-density-environment early-type galaxies, but the quantitative halo-scaling claim rests on extrapolated radii and fitted normalizations, and the mass-break is suggestive rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01807 v1 pith:ZDSKGYUF submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.GA

Juan Pablo Caso , Bruno J. De Bórtoli , Ana I. Ennis , Lilia P. Bassino This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords globularclustersystemsearly-typegalaxiesscalingrelationsdarkmatterhaloesmodifiedHubbleprofilegalaxyevolutionphotometryradialprofiles

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the radial size of a globular cluster system (GCS) in an early-type galaxy traces the size of the galaxy's dark-matter halo in nearly fixed proportions. The authors fit modified Hubble profiles to the projected GC density of almost 30 GCSs, combining their own Hubble Space Telescope photometry of intermediate-luminosity galaxies with published cluster catalogues, and find that GCS effective radius and outer extension correlate with host stellar mass, cluster richness, and galaxy effective radius. The scaling relations steepen above about $4\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$, and the extension also tracks central velocity dispersion for central galaxies but not for satellites. Against dark-matter haloes matched by K-band luminosity in a cosmological simulation, the effective radius of the GCS is about $1/16.7$ of the projected halo effective radius and the outer extension is about $1/8.5$ of the virial radius $r_{200}$. If correct, this gives observers a practical way to measure halo sizes from GC counts alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the modified Hubble profile $n(r)=a\,[1+(r/r_0)^2]^{-b}$, fitted to completeness- and contamination-corrected projected GC densities; the outer extension $r_L$ is defined as the radius where this profile falls to 30 per cent of the adopted background density ($1\,\mathrm{arcmin}^{-2}$), and the effective radius $r_{\mathrm{eff,GCS}}$ is computed from the fitted parameters. For the halo side, dark-matter haloes from a cosmological simulation are represented by an NFW (standard dark-halo density) profile, projected, and fitted with Sérsic profiles to obtain $r_{\mathrm{eff,halo}}$, with $r_{200}$ taken from the simulation catalogue. The comparison works by matching simulation haloes and galaxies one-to-one through a monotonic luminosity ranking, then fitting the constant factors that align the two radius scales.

What would settle it

Direct wide-field photometry that reaches the adopted $r_L$ for a few of the most extended GCSs would settle whether the extrapolated modified Hubble profile is real; if the observed GC density beyond the current field falls above or below the fitted law, the reported $r_L$ values and the constant factors $r_{200}/r_L=8.5$ and $r_{\mathrm{eff,halo}}/r_{\mathrm{eff,GCS}}=16.7$ would shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that GCS sizes and halo sizes are tied by simple, near-constant scale factors. From modified Hubble fits to 27 radial profiles (their own fits to low-density-field, Virgo, Fornax, and stacked systems) plus literature GCSs, the authors report that both the effective radius $r_{\mathrm{eff,GCS}}$ and the outer extension $r_L$ of the GCS scale with the host galaxy's stellar mass, with a bilinear break near $M_\star \simeq 4\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$ (their Equations 9 and 11). The statistical comparison with a dark-matter simulation yields $r_{200} = (8.5 \pm 0.5)\, r_L$ and $r_{\mathrm{eff,halo}} = (16.7 \pm 2.3)\, r_{\mathrm{eff,GCS}}$, where $r_{200}$ is the radius at which the mean density is 200 times the critical density and $r_{\mathrm{eff,halo}}$ is the projected Sérsic effective radius of the simulated halo. They also find that $r_L$ correlates with central velocity dispersion $\sigma_0$ for central galaxies but is roughly flat for satellites, which they interpret as a sign that the two populations have different accretion and stripping histories.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on assuming the fitted modified Hubble profile continues far beyond the image field, because for the most extended globular cluster systems the outer radius $r_L$ is extrapolated rather than observed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A GCS radial profile from relatively shallow imaging becomes a proxy for the dark halo's size, because the measured extension converts directly to the virial radius.
GCS size–stellar mass calibrations need two pieces: a single power law across the break near 4e10 solar masses would bias low-mass halo-size estimates.
Satellite galaxies should be separated from central galaxies in GCS scaling work, because their extension does not follow the same central-velocity-dispersion relation.
The break mass coinciding with the peak of the stellar-to-halo mass ratio supports the idea that GCS size records the assembly history of the halo, not just the stellar mass.
Future surveys can use the fitted constants to turn GC counts into halo-radius estimates for large samples of early-type galaxies without expensive dynamical measurements.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because $r_L$ is defined at a fixed contamination density, deeper photometry would push measured extensions outward, so the quoted 8.5 factor is likely tied to survey depth and should be re-derived on a uniform depth scale.
Wide-field, ground-based imaging of a few of the largest GCSs could check whether the 8.5 and 16.7 constants still hold at the radii where the halo comparison was calibrated, or whether tidal truncation changes the outer slope.
If the bilinear break is real, GCS size could serve as a halo-mass tracer exactly in the intermediate-mass regime where weak lensing is noisy; comparing GCS-based virial-radius estimates with lensing masses for the same galaxies would calibrate the bias.
A direct test of the satellite interpretation would be to look for preferentially metal-poor (blue) GCs stripped from satellites: if tidal stripping removes the outer GCs, the surviving satellite GCSs should be redder and more compact.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear X,

The value here is the data. Caso et al. add HST/ACS photometry and Hubble-profile fits for seven intermediate-luminosity early-type galaxies in low-density environments, stack faint Virgo galaxies into three usable radial profiles, and re-fit Virgo/Fornax systems on a more homogeneous footing. They also identify a plausible break near 4e10 Msun in the rL-Mstar relation. Most other results confirm earlier scaling relations from Kartha, Forbes, and Hudson & Robison; that is a reasonable contribution, especially at lower galaxy masses and in less dense environments.

The photometric analysis is competently done: standard candidate selection, explicit completeness corrections, and quoted uncertainties on the fitted profile parameters. The paper also candidly notes in Section 4.3 that extrapolating radial profiles beyond the ACS field may produce larger uncertainties than estimated. That caveat deserves more weight than the paper gives it. For the most extended systems, rL is five to eight times the ACS half-width: NGC 4621 has rL ~ 26 arcmin against a field half-width of about 3.4 arcmin. The quoted rL errors cover fit covariance and distance but not the assumed outer-profile shape. If the true GC density steepens at large radius, rL is biased, and the fitted r200 = 8.5 rL scaling shifts accordingly.

Second, the SMDPL comparison fits the normalization factors f200 and feff to place the data on the simulated distributions. That can test the shape or slope of the relation, but not the absolute ratio. The numbers r200 = 8.5 rL and reff,halo = 16.7 reff,GCS are not independent predictions.

Third, the bilinear rL-Mstar and reff,GCS-Mstar fits have no stated significance, no break-position uncertainty, and no comparison against a single-power-law alternative. The break is plausible, but it is not yet demonstrated. The tight reff,GCS-NGCs correlation is partly built in from the same profile fit, as the authors acknowledge.

None of this sinks the paper. The new profile measurements are usable and the main trends agree with the literature. But the halo-scaling conclusion should be treated as provisional until the extrapolation systematics are quantified or the most extrapolated systems are removed from that fit.

I would send this to peer review. A referee should ask for either a systematic error estimate for the outer-profile extrapolation or a robustness check excluding systems with rL well beyond the ACS field. With that revision it will be a solid MNRAS paper. I would cite it for the low-density-environment GCS profiles; I would not cite the halo normalization ratios as established.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a photometric study of globular cluster systems (GCSs) in early-type galaxies, combining HST/ACS imaging of seven low-density-environment galaxies with literature photometry for Virgo and Fornax cluster galaxies and compiled data from previous studies. The authors fit modified Hubble profiles to the projected GC density distributions and derive the effective radius, extension, and concentration of each GCS. They report correlations between these GCS parameters and host-galaxy stellar mass, number of GCs, effective radius, and central velocity dispersion, including a bilinear relation between GCS extension rL and log Mstar that steepens above roughly 4e10 Msun (Eq. 9). They further compare the observed rL and effective radius with dark-matter haloes from the SMDPL simulation, claiming that rL scales with the virial radius (r200 = 8.5 × rL) and that the GCS effective radius scales with the projected effective radius of haloes (reff,halo = 16.7 × reff,GCS).

Significance. If the results hold, the paper usefully extends GCS scaling relations to intermediate-luminosity early-type galaxies and provides empirical support for using GCS sizes as tracers of dark-matter halo sizes. The analysis is careful in several respects: the photometry and completeness corrections are described in detail, the profile fitting includes uncertainty bands from varying bin breaks, and the literature compilation is substantial. The agreement of the color and size trends with previous work is a strength. However, the headline halo comparison depends on rL values that are extrapolated well beyond the ACS field for the most extended systems, and the constants f200 and feff are fitted rather than predicted, so the strength of the halo-scaling claim should be tempered. The significance of the bilinear fit is also not quantified.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.3, Table 4, Eq. (9), Fig. 8] This is the most load-bearing issue because the extrapolated rL values enter both the mass-scaling relations and the simulation comparison.
[Section 4.4.4, Fig. 8] This limitation affects the interpretation of a headline result; it can be addressed with a clearer statement of what is fitted versus predicted.
[Section 4.4.2, Eq. (9) and Section 4.4.3, Eq. (11)] This is load-bearing for the claimed change of slope at intermediate galaxy masses.
[Section 4.4.3, panel H] This is a secondary but important caveat for one of the scaling-relation claims.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4.4.3, Eq. (11)] The dependent variable in Eq. (11) is labelled rL, but the text and panel G indicate that the quantity being fitted is reff,GCS; this should be corrected.
[Section 4.4.2 and Section 4.4.3, Eqs. (10) and (12)] Equations (10) and (12) use 'b =' on the left-hand side, but the quantities being fitted are rL and reff,GCS, respectively; the labels should be changed.
[Section 5, Discussion] The sentence 'The stellar mass at which the slope changes in our Equation 8' refers to Eq. (9), not Eq. (8), which is the b versus reff,gal relation; the cross-reference should be fixed.
[Section 4.3] The text states the radial binning is constant on a logarithmic scale with 'a typical size of log10∆r [arcsec] = 8'; this presumably means 0.8 in log10(arcsec), and the notation should be clarified.
[Introduction and Section 4.3] Several citations appear as '?' in the text (e.g., in the introduction and near the discussion of the background level), indicating incomplete reference entries; these need to be completed before publication.
[Figure 8 caption] The caption reads 'scaled to fit this latter one by a factor f200' and is awkwardly phrased; the wording should be revised for clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fitted halo scaling factors and shared-profile variables make part of the 'agreement' and correlations built in, but the core empirical fits and external comparisons remain independent.

fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4.4, Figure 8 (upper and lower panels)]
"There seems to be an agreement in the behaviour of both parameters as a function of MK. The scaling factor results r200 = f200 × rL with f200 = 8.5 ± 0.5. ... In this case the scaling factor was fitted to the dashed line, on the basis of a possible correlation between the parameters, resulting that reff,halo = feff × reff,GCS, with feff = 16.7 ± 2.3. ... This gives confidence to the assumption that the reff of haloes and GCSs are correlated."

The constants f200 and feff are not derived from the simulation; they are fitted so that the observed rL and reff,GCS points lie on the simulated r200(MK) and reff,halo(MK) curves. Hence the normalizations r200 = 8.5 rL and reff,halo = 16.7 reff,GCS are outputs of the fitting procedure, not independent predictions. The subsequent 'good agreement' and 'gives confidence' statements rest partly on this fitted alignment. Only the shape or trend of the two distributions is a genuine test, and the paper does not isolate that from the fitted normalization.
self definitional [Section 4.3 (Table 4, NGCs for Fornax galaxies) and Section 4.4.3 (panel H)]
"Then, we numerically integrated the radial profiles up to the distance rL, resulting in the number of GCs brighter than 24 mag in the z-band. ... Although there is a clear dependence in the calculus of both parameters, it is worth to emphasize the tight correlation between them, pointing to the richness of the GCS as the main factor to determine its extension."

Both variables come from the same fitted modified Hubble profile: reff,GCS is calculated from the fitted rL, r0 and b (Section 4.3), and for Fornax galaxies NGCs is obtained by numerically integrating that same fitted profile out to rL. Therefore the 'tight correlation' between reff,GCS and NGCs is partly a mathematical artifact of using one fitted curve to define both axes, rather than a fully independent empirical relation. The paper explicitly acknowledges the 'clear dependence' but still presents the correlation as evidence that richness controls extension. This is a partial self-definitional step, though it is disclosed, which limits its severity.

full rationale

This is an empirical scaling-relation paper, not a derivation from first principles. The modified Hubble profile fits and the correlations of b, rL, and reff,GCS with stellar mass, galaxy effective radius, and velocity dispersion are independent fits, and they are compared explicitly with external results (Kartha et al. 2014; Forbes 2017; Hudson & Robison 2018). I find no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation: the choice of the modified Hubble profile is stated directly in Section 4.3, and the rL definition is given in the text. The two flagged issues are real but partial: in Section 4.4.4 the halo scaling factors f200 and feff are fitted to align the data with SMDPL simulations, so the absolute normalization agreement is built in; and in Section 4.4.3 the tight reff,GCS-NGCs correlation is partly constructed because both quantities are derived from the same fitted profile for part of the sample. Both limitations are acknowledged in the paper. The acknowledged extrapolation of rL beyond the ACS field of view (Section 4.3) is a data-quality and model-dependence concern that affects accuracy, but it is not circularity. Overall, the central empirical content remains independent, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central relations rest on standard observational calibrations (extinctions, zero points, distances), on adopted definitions for rL and contamination, and on the simulation/HOD mapping. The most consequential assumptions are the FOV extrapolation of Hubble profiles and the HOD luminosity assignment; both are external to the photometric data and could bias the claimed scaling relations.

free parameters (3)

f200 = 8.5 ± 0.5
Fitted so that observed rL aligns with simulated r200 distributions in Figure 8; the normalization agreement is therefore not an independent prediction.
feff = 16.7 ± 2.3
Fitted so that observed reff,GCS aligns with simulated projected halo effective radii in Figure 8.
M_break = ~4e10 Msun
Break point in the bilinear relations (Eqs. 9 and 11); chosen from the locus of the data and from the Behroozi peak rather than derived from the data alone.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption HOD monotonic relation ng(>L) = nh(>M) is used to assign K-band luminosities to SMDPL haloes.
Equation 3 assumes a monotonic, scatter-free mapping between halo mass and galaxy luminosity; any bias in this mapping propagates into the simulated halo size distributions used for comparison.
domain assumption Dark matter haloes are described by NFW profiles in the simulation comparison.
NFW profiles are used to compute projected halo density distributions and effective radii in Figure 8; deviations from NFW would change the simulated reff,halo values.
domain assumption The Schechter luminosity function parameters from Kochanek et al. (2001) are valid at z=0 for the K band.
Used with the HOD recipe to assign luminosities to haloes; uncertain LF parameters change the halo-luminosity mapping.
domain assumption Each dark matter halo hosts exactly one galaxy; main haloes correspond to central galaxies and subhaloes to satellites.
This is the standard HOD assumption used in Section 3.2 to connect simulation structures to observed galaxies.
domain assumption The extension rL defined at 30% of the adopted background remains meaningful when the fitted Hubble profile is extrapolated beyond the ACS field of view.
Section 4.3 defines rL by extrapolation for several galaxies; this is the load-bearing measurement assumption that the authors flag as potentially underestimated uncertainty.
domain assumption Completeness corrections derived for NGC 4621 and NGC 1340 can be transferred to other Virgo/Fornax galaxies using mean surface brightness matching.
Section 3.1 applies completeness curves to galaxies without individual completeness analyses; differences in crowding or background could bias the fitted profiles.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling relations for globular cluster systems in early-type galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZDSKGYUF

@misc{pith2026190801807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling relations for globular cluster systems in early-type galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZDSKGYUF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01807}
}

read the original abstract

The formation and growth of globular cluster systems (GCSs) is closely related to the evolutionary processes experienced by their host galaxies. In particular, their radial distributions scale with several properties of the galaxies and their halos. We performed a photometric study, by means of HST/ACS archival data of several intermediate luminosity galaxies located in low density environments. It was supplemented with available photometric data of GCSs from the Virgo and Fornax clusters, resulting in a sample of almost 30 GCSs for which we fitted their radial profiles. The resulting overall properties agree with those from previous studies, as we found that the effective radius, extension and concentration of the GCS radial profiles correlate with the stellar mass, effective radius and number of globular clusters, presenting in some cases a bilinear relation. The extension also correlates with the central velocity dispersion for central galaxies, but not for satellites. From a statistical comparison with numerical simulations we obtained good agreement between the effective radius and extension of the GCS scale with the effective and virial radius of the halos, respectively. Finally, we analysed these results in the literature context.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01807 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Completeness as a function of z magnitude for NGC 3818, obtained from 60 000 artificial stars. The completeness curves were calculated in for different galactocentric ranges (Rg), and the fits correspond to Equation 2. The dashed vertical line at z = 25 mag indicates the assumed magnitude limit. Analogue analysis was performed for the other ellipticals in low-density environments. 20 21 22 23 24 25 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Completeness as a function of z magnitude for NGC 4621. A detailed analysis of the completeness behaviour at different radii was carried out from 250 000 artificial stars, in order to model the completeness for the rest of the galaxies in the Virgo cluster. Different colours identify completeness curves for different galactocentric radii, i.e. different surface-brightness levels, ranging from 17.4 to 21.9 mag arcs… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The upper panels show the surface-brightness profiles in g (green circles) and z (red squares) bands. The solid and dashed horizontal lines show the background level fitted in each case, the thin curves correspond to the S´ersic profile, and the thick ones to the contribution of the galaxy plus background. The fitting procedure was repeated iteratively. The middle panels represent the fit residuals, using the same s… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Upper panel: Smoothed distribution of (g−z)0 colour of GC candidates from the joint sample as a function of their reff. Candidates with reff in the range 10 − 20 pc, typical of extended clusters, were excluded from the figure. Lower panel: distribution of reff for all…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Projected radial distribution for GC candidates. The red solid line represents the modified Hubble profile fitted to the data. The grey region indicates the changes in the Hubble profile during individual iterations with different bin breaks (see the text for further d…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The exponent of the modified Hubble profile (b), the extension of the GCS (rL) and its effective radius (reff,GCS), as functions of the logarithm of the stellar mass (M⋆), the logarithm of the number of GCs (NGCs) and the effective radius of the host galaxy (reff,gal).…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Ratio between the core radius from the Hubble profile (r0) and the reff,gal of the host galaxy, as a function of M⋆. Points with large ratio might be overestimated due to small measurements of reff,gal. Shankar et al. 2014). Shankar & Bernardi (2009) indicated that th…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Upper panel: The red solid line corresponds to the distribution of r200 for the haloes from SMDPL as a function of the K absolute magnitude assigned by the HOD method, and the symbols are the rL of the GCS, scaled to fit this latter one by a factor f200. Lower panel: S…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

[1]

C., 2019, , 482, 2978

Amorisco N. C., 2019, , 482, 2978

2019
[2]

P., Caso J

Bassino L. P., Caso J. P., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4259

2017
[3]

P., Faifer F

Bassino L. P., Faifer F. R., Forte J. C., Dirsch B., Richtler T., Geisler D., Schuberth Y., 2006a, A&A
[4]

P., Richtler T., Dirsch B., 2006b, MNRAS

Bassino L. P., Richtler T., Dirsch B., 2006b, MNRAS
[5]

P., Richtler T., Dirsch B., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1145

Bassino L. P., Richtler T., Dirsch B., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1145

2008
[6]

S., Conroy C., Wechsler R

Behroozi P. S., Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., 2010, , 717, 379

2010
[7]

F., McIntosh D

Bell E. F., McIntosh D. H., Katz N., Weinberg M. D., 2003, ApJS, 149, 289

2003
[8]

Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

1996

Show all 131 references

[9]

Bezanson R., van Dokkum P., Franx M., 2012, , 760, 62

2012
[10]

Binney J., Tremaine S., 1987, Galactic dynamics

1987
[11]

P., Jord \'a n A., Mei S., C \^o t \'e P., Ferrarese L., Infante L., Peng E

Blakeslee J. P., Jord \'a n A., Mei S., C \^o t \'e P., Ferrarese L., Infante L., Peng E. W., Tonry J. L., West M. J., 2009, ApJ, 694, 556

2009
[12]

R., Forbes D

Blom C., Spitler L. R., Forbes D. A., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 37

2012
[13]

Brockamp M., K \"u pper A. H. W., Thies I., Baumgardt H., Kroupa P., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 150

2014
[14]

P., Romanowsky A

Brodie J. P., Romanowsky A. J., Strader J., Forbes D. A., 2011, AJ, 142, 199

2011
[15]

C., Kroupa P., 2012, A&A, 547, A65

Br \"u ns R. C., Kroupa P., 2012, A&A, 547, A65

2012
[16]

P., Bassino L

Calder \'o n J. P., Bassino L. P., Cellone S. A., Richtler T., Caso J. P., G \'o mez M., 2015, MNRAS, 451, 791

2015
[17]

Capuzzo-Dolcetta R., Mastrobuono-Battisti A., 2009, A&A, 507, 183

2009
[18]

P., Bassino L

Caso J. P., Bassino L. P., G \'o mez M., 2015, MNRAS, 453, 4421

2015
[19]

P., Bassino L

Caso J. P., Bassino L. P., G \'o mez M., 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3227

2017
[20]

P., Bassino L

Caso J. P., Bassino L. P., Richtler T., Calder \'o n J. P., Smith Castelli A. V., 2014, MNRAS, 442, 891

2014
[21]

P., Bassino L

Caso J. P., Bassino L. P., Richtler T., Salinas R., 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4371

2019
[22]

P., Richtler T., Bassino L

Caso J. P., Richtler T., Bassino L. P., Salinas R., Lane R. R., Romanowsky A., 2013, A&A, 555, A56

2013
[23]

Charlton P. J. L., Hudson M. J., Balogh M. L., Khatri S., 2017, , 472, 2367

2017
[24]

B., Marzke R

Chiboucas K., Tully R. B., Marzke R. O., Phillipps S., Price J., Peng E. W., Trentham N., Carter D., Hammer D., 2011, ApJ, 737, 86

2011
[25]

M., Blakeslee J

Cho J., Sharples R. M., Blakeslee J. P., Zepf S. E., Kundu A., Kim H.-S., Yoon S.-J., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3591

2012
[26]

Y., Li H., 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2343

Choksi N., Gnedin O. Y., Li H., 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2343

2018
[27]

Ciotti L., 1991, A&A, 249, 99

1991
[28]

H., Kravtsov A

Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., Kravtsov A. V., 2006, , 647, 201

2006
[29]

A., Vega-Mart \' nez C

Cora S. A., Vega-Mart \' nez C. A., Hough T., Ruiz A. N., Orsi \'A . A., Mu \ n oz Arancibia A. M., Gargiulo I. D., Collacchioni F., Padilla N. D., Gottl \"o ber S., Yepes G., 2018, , 479, 2

2018
[30]

P., Chen C.-W., Infante L., Merritt D., Mei S., Peng E

C \^o t \'e P., Ferrarese L., Jord \'a n A., Blakeslee J. P., Chen C.-W., Infante L., Merritt D., Mei S., Peng E. W., Tonry J. L., West A. A., West M. J., 2007, ApJ, 671, 1456

2007
[31]

H., Teodorescu A

Das P., Gerhard O., Mendez R. H., Teodorescu A. M., de Lorenzi F., 2011, , 415, 1244

2011
[32]

C., Bassino L

Dirsch B., Richtler T., Geisler D., Forte J. C., Bassino L. P., Gieren W. P., 2003, AJ, 125, 1908

2003
[33]

Dirsch B., Schuberth Y., Richtler T., 2005, A&A, 433, 43

2005
[34]

R., C \^o t \'e P., Peng E

Durrell P. R., C \^o t \'e P., Peng E. W., Blakeslee J. P., Ferrarese L., Mihos J. C., Puzia T. H., Lan c on A., Liu C., Zhang H., Cuillandre J.-C., McConnachie A., Jord \'a n A., Accetta K., Boissier S., Boselli A., Courteau S., 2014, ApJ, 794, 103

2014
[35]

G., Faifer F

Escudero C. G., Faifer F. R., Bassino L. P., Calder\'on J. P., Caso J. P., 2015, MNRAS, 0, 0

2015
[36]

G., Faifer F

Escudero C. G., Faifer F. R., Smith Castelli A. V., Forte J. C., Sesto L. A., Gonz \'a lez N. M., Scalia M. C., 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4302

2018
[37]

M., Wegner G., Burstein D., Davies R

Faber S. M., Wegner G., Burstein D., Davies R. L., Dressler A., Lynden-Bell D., Terlevich R. J., 1989, , 69, 763

1989
[38]

R., Forte J

Faifer F. R., Forte J. C., Norris M. A., Bridges T., Forbes D. A., Zepf S. E., Beasley M., Gebhardt K., Hanes D. A., Sharples R. M., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 155

2011
[39]

W., Blakeslee J

Ferrarese L., C \^o t \'e P., Jord \'a n A., Peng E. W., Blakeslee J. P., Piatek S., Mei S., Merritt D., Milosavljevi \'c M., Tonry J. L., West M. J., 2006, ApJS, 164, 334

2006
[40]

A., 2017, MNRAS, 472, L104

Forbes D. A., 2017, MNRAS, 472, L104

2017
[41]

A., Forte J

Forbes D. A., Forte J. C., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 257

2001
[42]

A., Grillmair C

Forbes D. A., Grillmair C. J., Williger G. M., Elson R. A. W., Brodie J. P., 1998, MNRAS, 293, 325

1998
[43]

A., Ponman T., O'Sullivan E., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 66

Forbes D. A., Ponman T., O'Sullivan E., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 66

2012
[44]

A., Read J

Forbes D. A., Read J. I., Gieles M., Collins M. L. M., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5592

2018
[45]

A., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Phan A

Forbes D. A., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Phan A. T. T., Brodie J. P., Strader J., Spitler L., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1230

2006
[46]

A., Spitler L

Forbes D. A., Spitler L. R., Strader J., Romanowsky A. J., Brodie J. P., Foster C., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2943

2011
[47]

C., Geisler D., Ostrov P

Forte J. C., Geisler D., Ostrov P. G., Piatti A. E., Gieren W., 2001, AJ, 121, 1992

2001
[48]

R., Romanowsky A

Foster C., Spitler L. R., Romanowsky A. J., Forbes D. A., Pota V., Bekki K., Strader J., Proctor R. N., Arnold J. A., Brodie J. P., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3393

2011
[49]

C., Hou J., 2010, , 408, 2201

Gan J., Kang X., van den Bosch F. C., Hou J., 2010, , 408, 2201

2010
[50]

Gavazzi G., Boselli A., 1996, Astrophysical Letters and Communications, 35, 1

1996
[51]

J., Diaferio A., Kurtz M

Geller M. J., Diaferio A., Kurtz M. J., 1999, , 517, L23

1999
[52]

Y., Puzia T

Georgiev I. Y., Puzia T. H., Hilker M., Goudfrooij P., 2009, MNRAS, 392, 879

2009
[53]

P., Chen C.-W., Infante L., Mei S., Tonry J

Glass L., Ferrarese L., C \^o t \'e P., Jord \'a n A., Peng E., Blakeslee J. P., Chen C.-W., Infante L., Mei S., Tonry J. L., West M. J., 2011, ApJ, 726, 31

2011
[54]

G \'o mez M., Richtler T., 2004, A&A, 415, 499

2004
[55]

R., Rhode K

Hargis J. R., Rhode K. L., 2012, AJ, 144, 164

2012
[56]

R., Rhode K

Hargis J. R., Rhode K. L., Strader J., Brodie J. P., 2011, , 738, 113

2011
[57]

Harris G. L. H., Harris W. E., Geisler D., 2004, AJ, 128, 723

2004
[58]

E., 2009a, ApJ, 699, 254

Harris W. E., 2009a, ApJ, 699, 254
[59]

E., 2009b, ApJ, 703, 939

Harris W. E., 2009b, ApJ, 703, 939
[60]

E., Harris G

Harris W. E., Harris G. L. H., Alessi M., 2013, ApJ, 772, 82

2013
[61]

E., Harris G

Harris W. E., Harris G. L. H., Barmby P., McLaughlin D. E., Forbes D. A., 2006, , 132, 2187

2006
[62]

E., Kavelaars J

Harris W. E., Kavelaars J. J., Hanes D. A., Pritchet C. J., Baum W. A., 2009, AJ, 137, 3314

2009
[63]

E., Racine R., 1979, , 17, 241

Harris W. E., Racine R., 1979, , 17, 241

1979
[64]

J., Harris G

Hudson M. J., Harris G. L., Harris W. E., 2014, ApJL, 787, L5

2014
[65]

J., Robison B., 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3869

Hudson M. J., Robison B., 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3869

2018
[66]

Huertas-Company M., Shankar F., Mei S., Bernardi M., Aguerri J. A. L., Meert A., Vikram V., 2013, , 779, 29

2013
[67]

P., Peng E

Jord \'a n A., Blakeslee J. P., Peng E. W., Mei S., C \^o t \'e P., Ferrarese L., Tonry J. L., Merritt D., Milosavljevi \'c M., West M. J., 2004, ApJS, 154, 509

2004
[68]

P., Ferrarese L., McLaughlin D

Jord \'a n A., C \^o t \'e P., Blakeslee J. P., Ferrarese L., McLaughlin D. E., Mei S., Peng E. W., Tonry J. L., Merritt D., Milosavljevi \'c M., Sarazin C. L., Sivakoff G. R., West M. J., 2005, ApJ, 634, 1002

2005
[69]

E., C \^o t \'e P., Ferrarese L., Peng E

Jord \'a n A., McLaughlin D. E., C \^o t \'e P., Ferrarese L., Peng E. W., Mei S., Villegas D., Merritt D., Tonry J. L., West M. J., 2007, ApJs, 171, 101

2007
[70]

W., Blakeslee J

Jord \'a n A., Peng E. W., Blakeslee J. P., C \^o t \'e P., Eyheramendy S., Ferrarese L., 2015, , 221, 13

2015
[71]

W., Blakeslee J

Jord \'a n A., Peng E. W., Blakeslee J. P., C \^o t \'e P., Eyheramendy S., Ferrarese L., Mei S., Tonry J. L., West M. J., 2009, ApJs, 180, 54

2009
[72]

J., 2007, , 374, 775

Kampakoglou M., Benson A. J., 2007, , 374, 775

2007
[73]

Kapferer W., Sluka C., Schindler S., Ferrari C., Ziegler B., 2009, , 499, 87

2009
[74]

S., Forbes D

Kartha S. S., Forbes D. A., Alabi A. B., Brodie J. P., Romanowsky A. J., Strader J., Spitler L. R., Jennings Z. G., Roediger J. C., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 105

2016
[75]

S., Forbes D

Kartha S. S., Forbes D. A., Spitler L. R., Romanowsky A. J., Arnold J. A., Brodie J. P., 2014, MNRAS, 437, 273

2014
[76]

King I., 1962, AJ, 67, 471

1962
[77]

R., 1966, AJ, 71, 64

King I. R., 1966, AJ, 71, 64

1966
[78]

Kissler-Patig M., Richtler T., Storm J., della Valle M., 1997, A&A, 327, 503

1997
[79]

Klypin A., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Prada F., He S., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340

2016
[80]

S., Pahre M

Kochanek C. S., Pahre M. A., Falco E. E., Huchra J. P., Mader J., Jarrett T. H., Chester T., Cutri R., Schneider S. E., 2001, ApJ, 560, 566–579

2001
[81]

V., 2013, , 764, L31

Kravtsov A. V., 2013, , 764, L31

2013
[82]

Kruijssen J. M. D., 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 31, 244006

2014
[83]

Kruijssen J. M. D., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1658

2015
[84]

M., Stebbins A., Annis J., Dell'Antonio I

Kubo J. M., Stebbins A., Annis J., Dell'Antonio I. P., Lin H., Khiabanian H., Frieman J. A., 2007, , 671, 1466

2007
[85]

M., Avila-Reese V., Abonza-Sane J., del Olmo A., 2016, A&A, 588, A79

Lacerna I., Hern \'a ndez-Toledo H. M., Avila-Reese V., Abonza-Sane J., del Olmo A., 2016, A&A, 588, A79

2016
[86]

S., 1999, A&AS, 139, 393

Larsen S. S., 1999, A&AS, 139, 393

1999
[87]

Y., 2014, ApJ, 796, 10

Li H., Gnedin O. Y., 2014, ApJ, 796, 10

2014
[88]

L., Mamon G

okas E. L., Mamon G. A., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 401

2003
[89]

P., Leigh N

Madrid J. P., Leigh N. W. C., Hurley J. R., Giersz M., 2017, , 470, 1729

2017
[90]

Makarov D., Prugniel P., Terekhova N., Courtois H., Vauglin I., 2014, , 570, A13

2014
[91]

L., Jord \'a n A., C \^o t \'e P., Ferrarese L., Blakeslee J

Masters K. L., Jord \'a n A., C \^o t \'e P., Ferrarese L., Blakeslee J. P., Infante L., Peng E. W., Mei S., West M. J., 2010, ApJ, 715, 1419

2010
[92]

P., Somerville R

Moster B. P., Somerville R. S., Maulbetsch C., van den Bosch F. C., Macci \`o A. V., Naab T., Oser L., 2010, , 710, 903

2010
[93]

L., Gnedin O

Muratov A. L., Gnedin O. Y., 2010, ApJ, 718, 1266

2010
[94]

F., Frenk C

Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, , 462, 563

1996
[95]

W., Jord \'a n A., C \^o t \'e P., Blakeslee J

Peng E. W., Jord \'a n A., C \^o t \'e P., Blakeslee J. P., Ferrarese L., Mei S., West M. J., Merritt D., Milosavljevi \'c M., Tonry J. L., 2006, ApJ, 639, 95

2006
[96]

W., Jord \'a n A., C \^o t \'e P., Takamiya M., West M

Peng E. W., Jord \'a n A., C \^o t \'e P., Takamiya M., West M. J., Blakeslee J. P., Chen C.-W., Ferrarese L., Mei S., Tonry J. L., West A. A., 2008, ApJ, 681, 197

2008
[97]

M., Hanes D

Perrett K. M., Hanes D. A., Butterworth S. T., Kavelaars J., Geisler D., Harris W. E., 1997, AJ, 113, 895

1997
[98]

Planck Collaboration Ade P. A. R., Aghanim N., Armitage-Caplan C., Arnaud M., Ashdown M., Atrio-Barandela F., Aumont J., Baccigalupi C., Banday A. J., et al. 2013, ArXiv e-prints

2013
[99]

L., Zepf S

Rhode K. L., Zepf S. E., 2004, AJ, 127, 302

2004
[100]

L., Zepf S

Rhode K. L., Zepf S. E., Kundu A., Larner A. N., 2007, , 134, 1403

2007
[101]

470 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Globular cluster systems of early-type galaxies: do we understand them?

Richtler T., 2013, in Pugliese G., de Koter A., Wijburg M., eds, 370 Years of Astronomy in Utrecht Vol. 470 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Globular cluster systems of early-type galaxies: do we understand them? . p. 327

2013
[102]

R., Hilker M., Schirmer M., 2015, A&A, 574, A21

Richtler T., Salinas R., Lane R. R., Hilker M., Schirmer M., 2015, A&A, 574, A21

2015
[103]

Rodr \' guez-Puebla A., Behroozi P., Primack J., Klypin A., Lee C., Hellinger D., 2016, , 462, 893

2016
[104]

R., 2015, A&A, 577, A59

Salinas R., Alabi A., Richtler T., Lane R. R., 2015, A&A, 577, A59

2015
[105]

Schechter P., 1976, , 203, 297

1976
[106]

F., Finkbeiner D

Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

2011
[107]

P., Romanowsky A

Schuberth Y., Richtler T., Hilker M., Dirsch B., Bassino L. P., Romanowsky A. J., Infante L., 2010, A&A, 513, A52

2010
[108]

S., 2012, A&A, 544, A115

Schuberth Y., Richtler T., Hilker M., Salinas R., Dirsch B., Larsen S. S., 2012, A&A, 544, A115

2012
[109]

L., 1968, Atlas de galaxias australes

Sersic J. L., 1968, Atlas de galaxias australes

1968
[110]

A., Faifer F

Sesto L. A., Faifer F. R., Forte J. C., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4260

2016
[111]

Shankar F., Bernardi M., 2009, , 396, L76

2009
[112]

Shankar F., Mei S., Huertas-Company M., Moreno J., Fontanot F., Monaco P., Bernardi M., Cattaneo A., Sheth R., Licitra R., Delaye L., Raichoor A., 2014, , 439, 3189

2014
[113]

J., White S

Shen S., Mo H. J., White S. D. M., Blanton M. R., Kauffmann G., Voges W., Brinkmann J., Csabai I., 2003, , 343, 978

2003
[114]

J., Ben \' tez N., Blakeslee J

Sirianni M., Jee M. J., Ben \' tez N., Blakeslee J. P., Martel A. R., Meurer G., Clampin M., De Marchi G., Ford H. C., Gilliland R., Hartig G. F., Illingworth G. D., Mack J., McCann W. J., 2005, PASP, 117, 1049

2005
[115]

H., Aguerri J

Smith R., S \'a nchez-Janssen R., Fellhauer M., Puzia T. H., Aguerri J. A. L., Farias J. P., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1066

2013
[116]

Spindler A., Wake D., 2017, , 468, 333

2017
[117]

R., Forbes D

Spitler L. R., Forbes D. A., Strader J., Brodie J. P., Gallagher J. S., 2008, MNRAS, 385, 361

2008
[118]

P., Forbes D

Strader J., Brodie J. P., Forbes D. A., 2004, AJ, 127, 295

2004
[119]

Tonini C., 2013, ApJ, 762, 39

2013
[120]

B., Courtois H

Tully R. B., Courtois H. M., Dolphin A. E., Fisher J. R., H \'e raudeau P., Jacobs B. A., Karachentsev I. D., Makarov D., Makarova L., Mitronova S., Rizzi L., Shaya E. J., Sorce J. G., Wu P.-F., 2013, AJ, 146, 86

2013
[121]

A., Spitler L

Usher C., Forbes D. A., Spitler L. R., Brodie J. P., Romanowsky A. J., Strader J., Woodley K. A., 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1172

2013
[122]

P., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1173

Vale A., Ostriker J. P., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1173

2006
[123]

G., Whitaker K

van Dokkum P. G., Whitaker K. E., Brammer G., Franx M., Kriek M., Labb \'e I., Marchesini D., Quadri R., Bezanson R., Illingworth G. D., Muzzin A., Rudnick G., Tal T., Wake D., 2010, ApJ, 709, 1018

2010
[124]

W., Blakeslee J

Villegas D., Jord \'a n A., Peng E. W., Blakeslee J. P., C \^o t \'e P., Ferrarese L., Kissler-Patig M., Mei S., Infante L., Tonry J. L., West M. J., 2010, ApJ, 717, 603

2010
[125]

J., Brodie J., van Dokkum P., Conroy C., Villaume A., Forbes D

Wasserman A., Romanowsky A. J., Brodie J., van Dokkum P., Conroy C., Villaume A., Forbes D. A., Strader J., Alabi A., Bellstedt S., 2018, , 863, 130

2018
[126]

J., Leigh N., Sills A., Harris W

Webb J. J., Leigh N., Sills A., Harris W. E., Hurley J. R., 2014, , 442, 1569

2014
[127]

Wehner E. M. H., Harris W. E., Whitmore B. C., Rothberg B., Woodley K. A., 2008, ApJ, 681, 1233

2008
[128]

D., Dowell J

Young M. D., Dowell J. L., Rhode K. L., 2012, , 144, 103

2012
[129]

E., Ashman K

Zepf S. E., Ashman K. M., 1993, MNRAS, 264, 611

1993
[130]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...
[131]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C., 2019, , 482, 2978

Amorisco N. C., 2019, , 482, 2978

2019

[2] [2]

P., Caso J

Bassino L. P., Caso J. P., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4259

2017

[3] [3]

P., Faifer F

Bassino L. P., Faifer F. R., Forte J. C., Dirsch B., Richtler T., Geisler D., Schuberth Y., 2006a, A&A

[4] [4]

P., Richtler T., Dirsch B., 2006b, MNRAS

Bassino L. P., Richtler T., Dirsch B., 2006b, MNRAS

[5] [5]

P., Richtler T., Dirsch B., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1145

Bassino L. P., Richtler T., Dirsch B., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1145

2008

[6] [6]

S., Conroy C., Wechsler R

Behroozi P. S., Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., 2010, , 717, 379

2010

[7] [7]

F., McIntosh D

Bell E. F., McIntosh D. H., Katz N., Weinberg M. D., 2003, ApJS, 149, 289

2003

[8] [8]

Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

1996