Paper detail

The population of early-type galaxies: how it evolves with time and how it differs from passive and late-type galaxies

The aim of our analysis is twofold. On the one hand we are interested in addressing whether a sample of ETGs morphologically selected differs from a sample of passive galaxies in terms of galaxy statistics. On the other hand we study how the relative abundance of galaxies, the number density and the stellar mass density for different morphological types change over the redshift range 0.6<z<2.5. From the 1302 galaxies brighter than Ks=22 selected from the GOODS-MUSIC catalogue, we classified the ETGs on the basis of their morphology and the passive galaxies on the basis of their sSFR. We proved how the definition of passive galaxy depends on the IMF adopted in the models and on the assumed sSFR threshold. We find that ETGs cannot be distinguished from the other morphological classes on the basis of their low sSFR, irrespective of the IMF adopted in the models. Using the sample of 1302 galaxies morphologically classified into spheroidal galaxies (ETGs) and not spheroidal galaxies (LTGs), we find that their fractions are constant over the redshift range 0.6<z<2.5 (20-30% ETGs vs 70-80% LTGs). However, at z<1 these fractions change among the population of the most massive (M*>=10^(11) M_sol) galaxies, with the fraction of massive ETGs rising up to 40% and the fraction of massive LTGs decreasing down to 60%. Moreover, we find that the number density and the stellar mass density of the whole population of massive galaxies increase almost by a factor of ~10 between 0.6<z<2.5, with a faster increase of these densities for the ETGs than for the LTGs. Finally, we find that the number density of the highest-mass galaxies (M*>3-4x10^(11) M_sol) both ETGs and LTGs do not increase since z~2.5, contrary to the lower mass galaxies. This suggests that the population of the most massive galaxies formed at z>2.5-3 and that the assembly of such high-mass galaxies is not effective at lower redshift.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.