4.7 Article

The globular cluster systems of 54 Coma ultra-diffuse galaxies: statistical constraints from HST data

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 475, Issue 3, Pages 4235-4251

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty116

Keywords

galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: dwarf; galaxies: formation; galaxies: haloes; galaxies: structure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We use data from the HST Coma Cluster Treasury program to assess the richness of the globular cluster systems (GCSs) of 54 Coma ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs), 18 of which have a half-light radius exceeding 1.5 kpc. We use a hierarchical Bayesian method tested on a large number of mock data sets to account consistently for the high and spatially varying background counts in Coma. These include both background galaxies and intra-cluster globular clusters (ICGCs), which are disentangled from the population of member globular clusters (GCs) in a probabilistic fashion. We find no candidate for a GCS as rich as that of the Milky Way, our sample has GCSs typical of dwarf galaxies. For the standard relation between GCS richness and halo mass, 33 galaxies have a virial mass M-vir <= 10(11) M-circle dot at 90 per cent probability. Only three have M-vir > 10(11) M-circle dot with the same confidence. The mean colour and spread in colour of the UDG GCs are indistinguishable from those of the abundant population of ICGCs. The majority of UDGs in our sample are consistent with the relation between stellar mass and GC richness of 'normal' dwarf galaxies. Nine systems, however, display GCSs that are richer by a factor of 3 or more (at 90 per cent probability). Six of these have sizes less than or similar to 1.4 kpc. Our results imply that the physical mechanisms responsible for the extended size of the UDGs and for the enhanced GC richness of some cluster dwarfs are at most weakly correlated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available