4.6 Article

THE SPACE DENSITY EVOLUTION OF WET AND DRY MERGERS IN THE CANADA-FRANCE-HAWAII TELESCOPE LEGACY SURVEY

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 141, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/87

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: interactions

资金

  1. NSERC
  2. Government of Ontario

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyze 1298 merging galaxies with redshifts up to z = 0.7 from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey, taken from the catalog presented in the work of Bridge et al. By analyzing the internal colors of these systems, we show that the so-called wet and dry mergers evolve in different senses, and quantify the space densities of these systems. The local space density of wet mergers is essentially identical to the local space density of dry mergers. The evolution in the total merger rate is modest out to z similar to 0.7, although the wet and dry populations have different evolutionary trends. At higher redshifts, dry mergers make a smaller contribution to the total merging galaxy population, but this is offset by a roughly equivalent increase in the contribution from wet mergers. By comparing the mass density function of early-type galaxies to the corresponding mass density function for merging systems, we show that not all the major mergers with the highest masses (M-stellar > 10(11) M-circle dot) will end up with the most massive early-type galaxies, unless the merging timescale is dramatically longer than that usually assumed. On the other hand, the usually assumed merging timescale of similar to 0.5-1 Gyr is quite consistent with the data if we suppose that only less massive early-type galaxies form via mergers. Since low-intermediate-mass ellipticals are 10-100 times more common than their most massive counterparts, the hierarchical explanation for the origin of early-type galaxies may be correct for the vast majority of early types, even if incorrect for the most massive ones.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据