Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

GAMA 526784: the progenitor of a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy? II. Molecular gas, neutral gas and environment

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GAMA 526784 may be caught mid-collision with a dwarf companion at 475 km/s

desk verdict First ALMA constraints on CO in a UDG plus a careful HI measurement make this worth a look; the high-speed encounter story hangs on a companion redshift nobody has measured yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19994 v1 pith:XQD52VPL submitted 2025-06-24 astro-ph.GA

Maria Luisa Buzzo , Anita Zanella , Michael Hilker , Kristine Spekkens , Laura Hunter , Laurella C. Marin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-diffusegalaxydwarf-dwarfinteractionmoleculargasneutralhydrogenCOnon-detectionstarclustersformationhigh-speedcollision
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

GAMA 526784 is an ultra-diffuse galaxy with an old, quiescent core and an outer region of young star clusters. This paper reports ALMA and GBT observations showing the galaxy contains a regular reservoir of neutral hydrogen ($M_{\mathrm{HI}}/M_\star \approx 2.9$) but no detectable CO-bright molecular gas. The paper argues that a small companion galaxy, located 48 kpc away in projection and aligned with the string of young clusters, may have collided with GAMA 526784 at roughly 475 km/s about 100 million years ago, triggering the burst of star cluster formation. If the association is real, the system is a rare snapshot of a high-speed dwarf-dwarf interaction in progress, potentially explaining how some globular-cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxies form. The interpretation hinges on the companion being at the same distance, which deep spectroscopy has not yet confirmed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the proposed high-speed dwarf-dwarf encounter, quantified through a timescale-separation argument: the roughly 100 Myr star formation burst and the 48 kpc projected separation imply a relative velocity of about 475 km/s, consistent with a bullet-dwarf-style collision (Lee et al. 2024). The CO and HI measurements serve as the diagnostic of the galaxy's current gas state: the HI line shows a regular double-horned rotating-disk profile with $M_{\mathrm{HI}}/M_\star = 2.88$, while the ALMA CO(1-0) data yield only 5$\sigma$ upper limits ($M_{\mathrm{H}_2}/M_\star < 0.23$ with a metallicity-dependent conversion factor), pointing to a gas reservoir that is mostly neutral or CO-dark rather than CO-bright molecular gas. The candidate companion, identified photometrically and aligned with the star cluster axis, is the trigger agent in the scenario.

What would settle it

Measure the redshift of the candidate companion. If its radial velocity is inconsistent with GAMA 526784's ($z \approx 0.0091$), the two are not physically associated and the high-speed encounter scenario, including the 475 km/s relative velocity, is ruled out. A single deep optical spectrum of the companion would settle this.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that GAMA 526784 is a transitional system caught between a gas-rich dwarf and a globular-cluster-rich quiescent ultra-diffuse galaxy, and that the transformation was driven by a high-speed encounter with a nearby dwarf companion. The evidence combines a regular HI disk with $M_{\mathrm{HI}}/M_\star \approx 2.9$, a CO(1-0) non-detection that sets a stringent upper limit on molecular gas ($M_{\mathrm{H}_2}/M_\star < 0.23$ at 5$\sigma$), and a companion candidate at 48 kpc projected separation with similar colors and aligned with the young star cluster string. From the roughly 100 Myr age of the star formation burst (Paper I) and the current projected separation, the paper infers a relative velocity of about 475 km/s, which it identifies with a high-speed collision able to trigger widespread disk star formation. The paper also offers three physical explanations for the HI-rich, CO-poor state: dominance of CO-dark molecular hydrogen, a delay in the HI-to-H$_2$ conversion after the interaction, or elevated turbulence that prevents gas collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The companion galaxy is assumed to lie at the same distance as GAMA 526784, so the 48 kpc projected separation is treated as a physical separation; if the companion is actually a background galaxy, the entire encounter scenario and the 475 km/s velocity inference lose their footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the encounter is real, GAMA 526784 is the first observational case of a high-speed dwarf-dwarf interaction in progress, a stage predicted by simulations but rarely seen.
  • The gas-rich, CO-poor state implies that star formation in low-metallicity dwarfs can proceed without a large CO-bright molecular reservoir, supporting the prominence of CO-dark H$_2$ in such systems.
  • The young massive clusters now forming could evolve into a globular cluster system, turning GAMA 526784 into a GC-rich, quiescent UDG and directly testing formation pathways for these galaxies.
  • If confirmed, the number of such transitional systems could be used to estimate how often high-speed dwarf-dwarf encounters occur in low-density environments and contribute to UDG production.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test is a redshift measurement of the companion: a single deep optical spectrum could confirm or reject the physical association within a few hours of telescope time, turning the 475 km/s velocity from an inference into a direct measurement.
  • The CO-dark gas interpretation predicts that emission from [CII] 158 $\mu$m or neutral carbon should reveal a substantial hidden molecular reservoir; a future ALMA detection of [CII] in GAMA 526784 would discriminate between CO-dark H$_2$ and a genuinely gas-poor molecular phase.
  • The timescale-separation argument assumes the burst age equals the time since closest approach; if star formation was instead triggered by a later passage or by gas accretion, the inferred relative velocity would change. This could be tested by comparing the cluster spatial distribution with N-body simulations of high-speed flybys.
  • If the interaction narrative holds, it would imply that some field UDGs form through dwarf-dwarf collisions rather than exclusively through cluster-environment processes, potentially revising estimates of the UDG formation rate in low-density regions.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents ALMA CO(1-0) and GBT HI observations of the ultra-diffuse galaxy GAMA 526784, together with an analysis of its environment. The authors report a non-detection of CO in both the diffuse body and at the positions of star clusters, deriving 5-sigma upper limits on the molecular gas mass using metallicity-dependent and Milky Way CO-to-H2 conversion factors. The GBT data reveal a double-horned HI profile with M_HI ~ 4.7e8 Msun, implying a gas-rich, dark-matter-dominated system. The paper then identifies a candidate companion at a projected separation of 48 kpc and argues, based on similar colours, alignment with the star-cluster string, and the ~100 Myr burst age from Paper I, that GAMA 526784 may be undergoing a high-speed (~475 km/s) dwarf-dwarf interaction that triggered the formation of young clusters. The conclusions frame the system as a possible transitional phase toward a globular-cluster-rich quiescent UDG.

Significance. The CO and HI measurements are a useful addition to the still-small census of cold gas in ultra-diffuse galaxies. The uv-plane analysis is careful, the upper limits are conservative, and the comparison with literature scaling relations is appropriately contextualized. If the proposed interaction with the companion were confirmed by a redshift, the system would indeed be a rare, possibly unique example of an in-progress high-speed dwarf-dwarf encounter with associated cluster formation, and it would strengthen the case for high-speed collisions as a UDG formation pathway. However, the central interaction narrative currently rests on an unmeasured companion redshift, and the paper's own discussion acknowledges this limitation; as it stands, the dynamical claim is a hypothesis rather than an established result. The independent gas measurements and the interaction hypothesis should be evaluated separately: the former are solid, while the latter is speculative but clearly testable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 and Conclusions] The high-speed encounter interpretation and the quantitative 475 km/s relative velocity are load-bearing claims that rest entirely on two unverified assumptions: (1) the candidate companion is at the same distance as GAMA 526784, converting the 48 kpc projected separation into a physical separation, and (2) the ~100 Myr star-formation burst marks the time since closest approach. The relative velocity is not measured; it is the ratio of an assumed physical separation to an assumed encounter time. The paper does acknowledge this in §4.1 ('If the companion lies in the background, only deep spectroscopy will be able to resolve this'), but the Abstract and Conclusions present the interaction as the paper's main finding rather than as a speculation. I recommend that the dynamical quantities be explicitly labelled as conditional on a spectroscopic redshift of the companion, and that the discussion be restructured so the interaction scenario is clearly separated from the direct observational results.
  2. [§4.1, companion physical properties] The derivation of the companion's effective radius (0.64 kpc) and stellar mass (log(M*/Msun)=7.3) explicitly assumes DL=40 Mpc, the distance of GAMA 526784, and these derived properties are then used to argue that the companion is a similar dwarf galaxy. This is circular until the companion's redshift is measured. The text states the assumption, but the subsequent similarity argument should be presented only as a conditional consistency check under the assumed association, not as evidence supporting the association itself. A redshift would also test whether the companion is a foreground or background dwarf with very different physical properties.
  3. [§5, first paragraph] The sentence 'The galaxy's HI reservoir ... contrasts with the misdetection of CO' uses 'misdetection' where 'non-detection' is meant. More substantively, the Conclusions state that the spatial arrangement and ages of the clusters are 'consistent with having been triggered during a close encounter approximately 100 Myr ago, which would mean that the galaxies are travelling at ~475 km/s with respect to each other.' This phrasing moves a conditional inference into a definitive statement. Given that the companion's association is unconfirmed, this overstates the certainty of the dynamical interpretation and should be revised to reflect the speculative status.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.4] The quoted logarithmic HI mass uncertainty is internally inconsistent: M_HI = (4.7±0.5)×10^8 Msun corresponds to log(M_HI/Msun) = 8.67±0.05, not 8.7±0.9 as stated. Please verify and correct the quoted uncertainty.
  2. [Abstract and §4.2] The abstract gives M_HI/M* = 2.88, but using the main-text values (log(M*/Msun)=8.24, M_HI=4.7e8 Msun) yields a ratio of about 2.7. Please check the consistency of the numbers quoted in the abstract, main text, and Table B.1.
  3. [§4.1, Figure 4 caption] The text refers to the background galaxy as 'PGC 025162' while the Figure 4 caption calls it 'PGC 025165'. Please correct the inconsistency.
  4. [§4.1] The word 'hypotehsise' is a typo for 'hypothesise'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gas measurements are independent, and the interaction hypothesis is explicitly conditional and not derived from its own assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's new observational results (ALMA CO non-detection upper limits, GBT HI detection, and the HI mass and rotation estimates) are derived directly from the data using standard, externally calibrated relations (e.g., Eq. 4 for M_HI, the Accurso et al. 2017 alpha_CO prescription, Eq. 5 for dynamical mass). The CO-to-H2 conversion uses metallicity and sSFR from Paper I, but those are independent measurements, not outputs of this paper, and the conversion factor itself is externally calibrated. The companion analysis is explicitly framed as a hypothesis: the companion is selected by similar g-r colour and alignment with the cluster axis, and the paper repeatedly states that physical association is not confirmed ('If the companion lies in the background, only deep spectroscopy will be able to resolve this'). The physical properties of the companion are derived assuming the same distance as GAMA 526784, and this assumption is stated transparently rather than used to manufacture a prediction. The ~475 km/s relative velocity is simply the projected separation divided by the ~100 Myr burst age from Paper I under the stated association hypothesis; it is not presented as a fitted parameter or as an independent prediction, and the paper acknowledges that current data cannot distinguish the association scenarios. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by an unverified self-citation. The central new measurements stand independently of the interaction narrative.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The candidate companion is a detected astronomical object, not an invented entity. The central assumptions are the companion distance, the CO conversion factor, and the burst-to-encounter timing link.

free parameters (3)
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor (alpha_CO,met) = 17.01 M_sun (K km/s pc^2)^-1
    Chosen via the metallicity-dependent Accurso et al. (2017) formula using 12+log(O/H)=8.3 and the galaxy's offset from the star-forming main sequence. An alternative Milky Way value (4.36) lowers the M_H2 upper limit by about 4x, so the quoted limit depends directly on this choice.
  • Star formation burst age = ~100 Myr
    Adopted from Paper I's star formation history; used to convert the 48 kpc projected separation into a relative velocity of about 475 km/s. The uncertainty on this age is not propagated.
  • Assumed luminosity distance D_L = 40 Mpc
    Taken from Paper I; enters the HI mass (Eq. 4) and all physical sizes. An error here scales the HI mass quadratically, and the quoted uncertainty of 0.9 dex appears to absorb this.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CO-to-H2 conversion factor calibrated for low-metallicity galaxies applies to GAMA 526784.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to convert CO upper limits into molecular gas mass upper limits; the paper also gives a Milky Way value for comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The putative companion is at the same distance as GAMA 526784.
    Stated in Section 4.1 without a spectroscopic redshift; the 48 kpc separation and physical association rest entirely on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The young star clusters are co-spatial with their parent GMCs within the ALMA beam.
    Used in Section 3.1 to place point-source CO constraints at the cluster positions, assuming offsets smaller than the 0.74 by 0.56 arcsec beam.
  • domain assumption The HI disk extends to 3 effective radii.
    Adopted in Section 3.4 from Broeils and Rhee 1997 to compute the dynamical mass within 3Re; the HI is unresolved by the 9 arcmin GBT beam.
  • ad hoc to paper The ~100 Myr star formation burst marks the time since the closest encounter with the companion.
    Used in Section 4.1 to derive the 475 km/s relative velocity; the burst age comes from Paper I, and the link to the encounter time is an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GAMA 526784: the progenitor of a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy? II. Molecular gas, neutral gas and environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQD52VPL

@misc{pith2026250619994,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GAMA 526784: the progenitor of a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy? II. Molecular gas, neutral gas and environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQD52VPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19994}
}
read the original abstract

Aims. We investigate the gas reservoirs, star formation (SF) properties, and environment of the ultra-diffuse galaxy GAMA526784 to understand its formation history, the efficiency of molecular gas conversion into stars, and the possible role of an interacting companion in shaping its morphology. Methods. We analyse low and high-resolution CO observations to constrain the molecular gas content, compare with HI data, and examine the SF efficiency of GAMA526784. The potential influence of a newly identified nearby dwarf galaxy is assessed using photometric and spatial information. Results. GAMA526784 exhibits a regular HI reservoir (M_HI/M* = 2.88) but only upper limits on its molecular gas mass (M_H2(5sigma)/M* < 0.23). The HI reservoir and CO non-detection can be explained by several mechanisms: (1) predominance of CO-dark H2, invisible to CO observations but contributing to SF; (2) a time delay in HI-to-H2 conversion following a recent interaction; or (3) elevated turbulence inhibiting gas collapse. An identified companion, found at a projected distance of 48 kpc, shows similar colours and lies in the direction of young star clusters in GAMA526784, indicating a possible association. We hypothesise this companion may have triggered the formation of star clusters in GAMA526784 through a high-velocity encounter. Conclusions. Our findings suggest GAMA526784 may have undergone an interaction that influenced its gas reservoirs and SF activity. The presence of a nearby companion agrees with predictions of a high-speed encounter, potentially offering a rare example of such an interaction in progress. We suggest this encounter may have shaped the system's recent evolution. Future observations, particularly targeting molecular gas tracers beyond CO and resolved HI maps, will be crucial in determining the extent of GAMA526784's cold gas reservoir and the nature of its recent star formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19994 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the HST optical image with the ALMA high-resolution cube of GAMA 526784. The star clusters (which are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HI spectrum of GAMA 526784, smoothed by a factor of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scaling relations for the molecular and neutral has con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The possible interacting system of GAMA 526784 and putative companion, separated by 48 kpc in projection. Young star [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 133

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4750

    Accurso, G., Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4750

    2017

  3. [3]

    Amorisco, N. C. & Loeb, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, L51

    2016

  4. [4]

    D., Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A. K., Rosolowsky, E., Walter, F., & Blitz, L. 2008, ApJ, 686, 948

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207

    2013

  6. [6]

    D., Geha, M

    Bradford, J. D., Geha, M. C., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2016, ApJ, 832, 11

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Broeils, A. H. & Rhee, M. H. 1997, A&A, 324, 877

    1997

  8. [8]

    L., Hilker, M., Zanella, A., et al

    Buzzo, M. L., Hilker, M., Zanella, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.15910

    arXiv 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 181

    Cao, T.-W., Li, Z.-J., Chen, P.-B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 181

    2024

  2. [10]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 382

    Carleton, T., Errani, R., Cooper, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 382

    2019

  3. [11]

    C., Lebouteiller, V ., et al

    Cormier, D., Madden, S. C., Lebouteiller, V ., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A121

    2014

  4. [12]

    A., Clemens, M., & Sheth, K

    Cullen, H., Alexander, P., Green, D. A., Clemens, M., & Sheth, K. 2007, MN- RAS, 374, 1185

    2007

  5. [13]

    2022, ApJ, 927, L28 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C

    Danieli, S., van Dokkum, P., Trujillo-Gomez, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, L28 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Dutton, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, L1

    2022

  6. [14]

    L., Rosolowsky, E., & Blitz, L

    Engargiola, G., Plambeck, R. L., Rosolowsky, E., & Blitz, L. 2003, ApJS, 149, 343 Article number, page 7 of 10 A&A proofs:manuscript no. GAMA526784

    2003

  7. [15]

    2019, A&A, 628, A60

    Fensch, J., Duc, P.-A., Boquien, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A60

    2019

  8. [16]

    & Lucas, R

    Guilloteau, S. & Lucas, R. 2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Confer- ence Series, V ol. 217, Imaging at Radio through Submillimeter Wavelengths, ed. J. G. Mangum & S. J. E. Radford, 299

    2000

  9. [17]

    P., Giovanelli, R., & Chincarini, G

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Chincarini, G. L. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 445

    1984

  10. [18]

    Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321

    1926

  11. [19]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 2065

    Hughes, A., Wong, T., Ott, J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2065

    2010

  12. [20]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 91

    Karunakaran, A., Motiwala, K., Spekkens, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 91

    2024

  13. [21]

    Kim, J., Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 487

    2021

  14. [22]

    Krumholz, M. R. & Dekel, A. 2012, ApJ, 753, 16

    2012

  15. [23]

    Lada, C. J. & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57

    2003

  16. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 917, L15

    Lee, J., Shin, E.-j., & Kim, J.-h. 2021, ApJ, 917, L15

    2021

  17. [25]

    R., & Chung, E

    Lee, J., Shin, E.-j., Kim, J.-h., Shapiro, P. R., & Chung, E. 2024, ApJ, 966, 72

    2024

  18. [26]

    P., Janowiecki, S., et al

    Leisman, L., Haynes, M. P., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 133

    2017

  19. [27]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 43

    2021

  20. [28]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782

    2008

  21. [29]

    A., Rosales-Ortega, F

    Marino, R. A., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 559, A114

    2013

  22. [30]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in As- tronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  23. [31]

    Papastergis, E., Adams, E. A. K., & Romanowsky, A. J. 2017, A&A, 601, L10

    2017

  24. [32]

    C., et al

    Ramambason, L., Lebouteiller, V ., Madden, S. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A14

    2024

  25. [33]

    2019, A&A, 625, A65

    Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., Agertz, O., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A65

    2019

  26. [34]

    K., Walter, F., et al

    Schruba, A., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 138

    2012

  27. [35]

    2014, Nature, 514, 335

    Shi, Y ., Armus, L., Helou, G., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 335

    2014

  28. [36]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 25

    Shin, E.-j., Jung, M., Kwon, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 25

    2020

  29. [37]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, L24

    Silk, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, L24

    2019

  30. [38]

    Solomon, P. M. & Vanden Bout, P. A. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 677

    2005

  31. [39]

    & Karunakaran, A

    Spekkens, K. & Karunakaran, A. 2018, ApJ, 855, 28

    2018

  32. [40]

    Strong, A. W. & Mattox, J. R. 1996, A&A, 308, L21

    1996

  33. [41]

    K., Schinnerer, E., et al

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, L8 van Dokkum, P., Shen, Z., Keim, M. A., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 435 van Dokkum, P. G., Abraham, R., Merritt, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, L45

    2020

  34. [42]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, L26

    Wang, J., Yang, K., Zhang, Z.-Y ., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, L26

    2020

  35. [43]

    E., van Dokkum, P

    Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., & Franx, M. 2012, ApJ, 754, L29

    2012

  36. [44]

    A., Dame, T

    Wilson, B. A., Dame, T. M., Masheder, M. R. W., & Thaddeus, P. 2005, A&A, 430, 523

    2005

  37. [45]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1976

    Zanella, A., Daddi, E., Magdis, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1976

    2018

  38. [46]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 923 Article number, page 8 of 10 Maria Luisa Buzzo et al.: GAMA 526784: the progenitor of a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy? Fig

    Zanella, A., Valentino, F., Gallazzi, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 923 Article number, page 8 of 10 Maria Luisa Buzzo et al.: GAMA 526784: the progenitor of a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy? Fig. A.1: Comparison of Hαmap, highlighting where the molec- ular gas woul...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.