Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 180 references

2D Surface Brightness Modelling of Large 2MASS Galaxies II: The Role of Classical Bulges and Pseudobulges on Galaxy Scaling Relations and its implication for Supermassive Black Hole Formation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pseudobulges break the black-hole mass scaling law. A 119-galaxy near-infrared survey shows pseudobulges follow separate, shallower tracks in the black-hole mass relations, so one universal calibration cannot hold.

desk verdict A useful photometric catalog and target list, wrapped around a pseudobulge dichotomy claim that overreaches the data in the M•–σ section. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02546 v2 pith:X6MNDVDF submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.GA

Emmanuel Ríos-López , Omar López-Cruz , Christopher Añorve , Mabel Valerdi , Victoria R. Dufrane , Erick A. Rodríguez-Hernández This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyscalingrelationspseudobulgesclassicalbulgessupermassiveblackholessurfacebrightnessdecompositionnear-infraredphotometrycDgalaxies2MASS
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 uses 2D near-infrared surface brightness decompositions of 119 bright galaxies (100 from the 2MASS Large Galaxy Atlas plus 19 cD galaxies) to test whether bulge type matters for galaxy scaling relations. It argues that classical bulges lie on the same Faber–Jackson, luminosity–size, luminosity–concentration, and fundamental-plane relations as elliptical galaxies, while pseudobulges are systematically offset outliers at low luminosity and low velocity dispersion. The central claim is that pseudobulges do not follow the supermassive black hole (SMBH) scaling relations defined by early-type galaxies and classical bulges: in the $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$\sigma$ and $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$L$ planes they occupy the low-mass regime with shallower slopes. If true, black hole mass cannot be read off a single universal relation, and secular growth rather than mergers must be able to build at least low-mass black holes. The paper also introduces a luminosity threshold ($M_{K_s} \le -22$ mag) as a complementary bulge classifier and provides 15 candidate galaxies for dynamical black hole mass measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the two-dimensional multicomponent surface brightness decomposition with GALFIT applied to 2MASS J, H, K$_s$ images, which separates bulge, disc, and bar light and so measures bulge luminosity, effective radius, S\'ersic index, and disc parameters independently of total galaxy light. On top of this sits the bulge/pseudobulge classification from Paper I—three criteria: position on the Kormendy relation, S\'ersic index $n \ge 2$, and central velocity dispersion $\sigma \ge 130$ km/s, with at least two criteria required—and robust linear regressions (LtsFit, after Cappellari et al.) that quantify slopes, zero points, and intrinsic scatter for each subsample. The SMBH analysis adds literature dynamical black hole masses for about 31 galaxies plus supplementary K$_s$-band pseudobulge data from the literature.

What would settle it

Measure dynamical black hole masses for 15 to 20 pseudobulges classified by orbital structure or bar/disk morphology rather than by Sersic index or Kormendy locus, and compare the resulting $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$\sigma$ slope with that of classical bulges; if the flattening disappears under independent classification, the claimed dichotomy is an artifact of the classifier.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that bulge population is a primary axis of galaxy scaling relations. Using GALFIT 2D multicomponent fits to 2MASS JHK$_s$ images, the authors show that classical bulges and cD galaxies extend the fundamental plane and its projections (Faber–Jackson, luminosity–size, luminosity–concentration) traced by elliptical galaxies, whereas pseudobulges scatter off those relations toward lower luminosities, lower velocity dispersions ($\sigma \lesssim 130$ km/s), and flatter luminosity–size slopes ($m \approx 0.2$). In the SMBH scaling relations, classical bulges continue to define steep $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$\sigma$ and $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$L$ tracks (slopes near 5.5 and 1.3\,$-$\,1.4), while the eight pseudobulges with dynamical black hole masses, and the larger literature sample when added, follow markedly shallower tracks; adding literature pseudobulges drops the pseudobulge $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$L$ slope from about 2.1 to 0.3 and the $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$\sigma$ slope to about 1.7. The authors conclude that pseudobulges do not follow the early-type/classical-bulge SMBH relations and that disc luminosity shows no correlation with $M_\bullet$, implying that discs and black holes have not coevolved.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 'pseudobulge' and 'classical bulge' labels are correct and independent of the correlations being measured, but the classification itself uses the Kormendy relation, Sersic index, and velocity dispersion, so if the labels shift, the reported dichotomy could weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dichotomy is real, single-universal-relation estimates of $M_\bullet$ in late-type or pseudobulge hosts are biased high, because pseudobulges populate a lower, shallower track.
  • The $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$\sigma_e$ relation remains the lowest-scatter SMBH mass estimator, while the $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$n$ relation is too noisy to use; future dynamical measurements should target velocity dispersion rather than concentration.
  • The absence of an $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,disc-luminosity correlation implies black holes grow with the spheroid, not the disc, so secular disc processes alone do not set the final SMBH mass.
  • The new luminosity threshold $M_{K_s} \le -22$ mag offers a cheap photometric way to flag bulge type in NIR surveys without spectroscopy.
  • The 15 candidates with predicted radii of influence $\gtrsim 0.4''$ are concrete targets where ground-based adaptive-optics IFU observations could roughly double the number of pseudobulge dynamical masses and directly test the flat-slope trend.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the classification criteria include the very relations being tested (Kormendy locus, S\'ersic index, and $\sigma$), part of the classical/pseudobulge separation in the FJR, LSR, and $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$\sigma$ planes may be built into the sample definitions; an independent classification based on kinematics or bar/disk morphology would be needed to confirm the dichotomy is physical.
  • If pseudobulges genuinely follow a shallower $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$\sigma$ relation, secular disk processes can assemble black holes up to roughly $10^7$\,$-$\,$10^8\,M_\odot$, while the most massive SMBHs and ultramassive black holes still require merger-built classical bulges; this predicts an over-representation of intermediate-mass black holes in unbarred late-type galaxies.
  • The flat NIR colour–magnitude relation for bulges implies that the slope of the cluster colour–magnitude relation in the NIR is set by the discs, not the old spheroids; extending 2D decomposition to higher-redshift cluster samples could test whether CMR slope evolution is a disc phenomenon.
  • The $M_\bullet$\,$-$\,$r_e$ relation predicting systematically higher masses for cD galaxies (e.g., NGC 3551 and MCG-02-12-039 near $10^{11}\,M_\odot$) suggests either that this relation is biased at the high-mass end or that these galaxies harbour ultramassive black holes; direct measurements would discriminate between the two.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents 2D multi-component GALFIT surface-brightness decompositions of 119 nearby galaxies (101 galaxies from Paper I plus 18 newly analysed cD galaxies; M87 from Paper I brings the cD count to 19) using 2MASS J, H, and Ks imaging. It revisits the Fundamental Plane and its projections (FJR, LSR, LCR, CMR), the TFR, and SMBH scaling relations, splitting bulges into classical bulges and pseudobulges using the criteria defined in §2.6. The authors report that classical bulges follow the same relations as ellipticals while pseudobulges are outliers, and that the M•-σ and M•-L relations for pseudobulges become shallower when additional literature pseudobulges are included, leading them to conclude that pseudobulges follow different SMBH scaling relations. They also propose a luminosity criterion (MKs ≤ -22) for bulge classification and provide a list of candidate galaxies for dynamical BH mass measurements.

Significance. The paper has notable strengths: careful 2D modelling with GALFIT, explicit model-selection criteria (AIC/BIC), cross-checks of LtsFit against a Bayesian method (linmix), open-source code (EllipSect), and comparisons with S4G and published photometry. The cD photometry and the list of BH-mass candidates are useful resources. If the central claim about pseudobulges were established, it would imply that a single universal M•-σ or M•-L relation does not hold for all bulge types, with direct consequences for BH mass estimation and for scenarios of BH-galaxy coevolution. However, the load-bearing parts of that claim currently rest on a bulge classification that overlaps with the very relations being tested, and on a small augmented pseudobulge sample with heterogeneous measurements. As presented, the evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.6, §3.2.2, §3.3.4] The bulge classification is not independent of the scaling relations whose classical/pseudobulge dichotomy is the paper's central claim. Criteria I, II, and III in §2.6 use the Kormendy-relation locus, Sérsic index n ≥ 2, and σ ≥ 130 km/s; §3.2.2 then fits separate FJR relations with a separator drawn at log σ = 2.11 (Fig. 3), and §3.3.4 fits separate M•-σ relations (Fig. 14). Fitting independent regressions to subsamples that are truncated in n and σ can produce different slopes and intercepts even if a single universal relation with intrinsic scatter underlies both classes. I request a concrete test: simulate a single relation with comparable scatter, apply the same n and σ selection cuts, and show whether the observed slope differences (e.g., Table 4 FJR slopes of -0.07 vs -0.12; Table 5 σ-row slopes) are larger than what truncation alone produces. If the differences are reproducible by selection alone, the conclusion that pseudobulges follow different relations must be weakened accordingly.
  2. [Table 5 and §4.4] The 'different correlations' conclusion for M•-σ rests on the augmented, heterogeneous pseudobulge sample, not on the homogeneous sample. In Table 5, the eight pseudobulges from the authors' own sample give an M•-σ slope of 5.50 ± 1.80, statistically consistent with the full-sample slope of 5.45 ± 0.52 and the classical-bulge slope of 5.74 ± 0.69. The shallower slope of 1.69 ± 0.92 (σ*) appears only after adding 14 literature pseudobulges, which, as the authors note in §2.2, include 1D photometric decompositions and different BH measurement methods. The same pattern appears for M•-L (2.08 ± 0.44 for P vs 0.30 ± 0.31 for LKs*). I recommend presenting the homogeneous 8-pseudobulge fits as the primary result and the augmented fits as exploratory, and either restricting the augmentation to galaxies with 2D decompositions and consistent mass methods or explicitly quantifying the heterogeneity as an additional uncertainty.
  3. [§4.1, Fig. 6, §5(iv)] The new luminosity criterion (MKs ≤ -22 for classical bulges, MKs > -22 for pseudobulges) is introduced post hoc from the same sample in which the original classification was already applied, and luminosity is strongly correlated with σ and n, the variables used in the original criteria. If this criterion is used in any subsequent analysis or claimed as an independent classifier, it compounds the circularity identified above. The paper should state unequivocally whether this criterion was used in any of the fits in Tables 4 and 5, and it should be validated on an independent sample (e.g., galaxies with literature-based bulge classifications) before being adopted as a general rule.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §2.1.2] The abstract states '100 galaxies in the Large Galaxy Atlas' while §2.1 and §2.1.2 say 101 galaxies from Paper I plus 18 new cD galaxies (with M87 already in Paper I, giving 19 cD galaxies in total); the counts should be made consistent throughout.
  2. [§2.4] The sentence 'the former total magnitudes are ∼ 0.1 % fainter, with a dispersion of 0.4 %' appears to mix percentages with magnitudes; as written it is ambiguous, and magnitudes (e.g., 0.1 mag, 0.4 mag) would be the expected units.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'the black solid line in the Ks band LCR (left panel)', but the three panels in Fig. 2 are ordered J, H, Ks, so the Ks band is the right panel, not the left panel.
  4. [Table 5, nKs row] The reported zero-point for the pseudobulge fit in the nKs row, '7.38 ± 0.0.28', contains a typographical error ('0.0.28' should presumably be '0.28').
  5. [§4.1 and §5(v)] There are several typos: 'pseudobluges' in §4.1, 'Mdics' in conclusion (v), and 'Kormendy & Ho (e.g., 2013)' / 'Beifiori et al. (e.g., 2012)' in conclusion (xi), which should be 'Kormendy & Ho (2013)' and 'Beifiori et al. (2012)' respectively.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The pseudobulge dichotomy in the FJR, LCR, and KR is partly installed by the §2.6 classifier, and the separate SMBH-scaling-relation fits are range-restricted regressions on samples defined by the same variables.

  1. self definitional [§2.6 Bulge Classification, applied in §3.2.1 (LCR) and §3.2.2 (FJR); summarized in §5(iii)]
    "I) Classical bulges fall on the KR (see Fig. 9 of Paper I): pseudobulges are outliers. II) Classical bulges have n ⩾ 2: pseudobulges have low Sérsic index with n <2, III) Classical bulges have σ ⩾ 130 km s−1: pseudobulges have σ < 130 km s−1 ... The FJR is depicted in Fig. 3, where the dashed horizontal line at log σ = 2.11 (corresponding to σ = 130 km s−1) indicates our criterion adopted to separate bulge types."

    The classification scheme partitions the sample on the same axes that are later used to demonstrate the dichotomy: criterion I defines pseudobulges as KR outliers, criterion II splits at n=2 (the LCR separator in Fig. 2), and criterion III splits at σ=130 km/s (the FJR separator in Fig. 3). Reporting that pseudobulges are outliers in the KR/LCR/FJR and occupy the low-σ, low-n end of these relations is therefore a restatement of the classifier rather than an independent measurement. Moreover, because the pseudobulge subsample is truncated in σ and n by definition, the separate linear fits in Table 4 are range-restricted regressions; the different slopes and larger scatter of the pseudobulge fits partly reflect the selection cut, not a distinct physical relation.

full rationale

The paper is a substantial re-analysis with new 2D photometry, comparisons to external catalogues, and literature BH masses, so it is not wholly circular. However, the central claim that pseudobulges are outliers from the scaling relations followed by classical bulges and ellipticals is entangled with the classification itself. In §2.6, the classes are defined by KR locus, Sérsic index n, and velocity dispersion σ; the same three variables are then used as the axes or separator lines of the KR, LCR, and FJR. Thus the abstract's statement that 'classical bulges follow the same relations as elliptical galaxies, while pseudobulges are usually outliers' is, for these relations, partly true by construction rather than by independent test. The SMBH-scaling-relation claim also rests on a classifier with a σ<130 km/s criterion; fitting separate M•-σ relations to the two σ-truncated subsamples cannot by itself prove distinct physics. Indeed, the paper's own homogeneous pseudobulge sample gives an M•-σ slope of 5.50±1.80, consistent with the full-sample slope of 5.45±0.52; the shallower pseudobulge slope of 1.69±0.92 appears only after adding literature pseudobulges with heterogeneous photometry and BH mass methods, as the authors themselves note when reporting that slopes 'dramatically vary' by a factor of ~3. The paper also cautions that larger homogeneous pseudobulge samples are needed. These caveats limit the independent content of the 'different correlations' conclusion, though the SMBH data themselves are external and the paper is not relying on a load-bearing self-citation chain. Overall, one or more of the headline SR dichotomies reduce by construction, so a moderate circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim relies on the bulge classification scheme and the literature BH masses; no new physical entities are introduced. The lone free parameter is the new luminosity threshold used as a classifier.

free parameters (1)
  • Luminosity threshold for bulge classification = MKs = -22 mag
    Chosen directly from the sample's CMR plot (Fig. 6) to separate classical bulges from pseudobulges; no independent validation set is used, so it is a fitted threshold.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Virial equilibrium and homologous structure underpin the Fundamental Plane interpretation.
    Invoked in §3.2.4 when comparing FP coefficients to the virial expectation alpha=2, beta=1; if the galaxies are not homologous the interpretation of the FP changes.
  • domain assumption GALFIT multi-component decompositions recover the true bulge, disc, and bar structural parameters.
    The whole analysis depends on the photometric decompositions from Paper I and §2.4; degeneracies between Sersic components could bias bulge parameters.
  • domain assumption BH masses compiled from the literature (Table 2) are accurate and directly comparable.
    Used in §3.3 for all SMBH scaling relations; heterogeneous measurement methods (stars, gas, masers) and distances may introduce scatter.
  • ad hoc to paper The bulge classification criteria are independent of the scaling relations being tested.
    §2.6 uses the Kormendy relation, n>=2, and sigma>=130 km/s; these overlap with the relations examined in §3.2, so part of the dichotomy could be built in.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2D Surface Brightness Modelling of Large 2MASS Galaxies II: The Role of Classical Bulges and Pseudobulges on Galaxy Scaling Relations and its implication for Supermassive Black Hole Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X6MNDVDF

@misc{pith2026250202546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2D Surface Brightness Modelling of Large 2MASS Galaxies II: The Role of Classical Bulges and Pseudobulges on Galaxy Scaling Relations and its implication for Supermassive Black Hole Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X6MNDVDF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02546}
}
read the original abstract

We have generated 2D-multicomponent surface brightness (SB) modelling for 100 galaxies in the Large Galaxy Atlas (LGA) together with 19 nearby cD galaxies using the near-infrared (NIR) images from 2MASS (J, H and Ks ). Our final sample of 119 galaxies includes cD galaxies, Virgo cluster galaxies, group galaxies, and field galaxies. We revisited known scaling relations (SRs) involving structural parameters, as well as those involving supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and ultramassive black holes (UMBHs). Refining the SRs, we also revisited the bulge classification and considered the Fundamental Plane (FP) and its projections, as well as other SRs, such as the colour-magnitude relation (CMR), Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) and luminosity concentration relation (LCR). Classical bulges follow the same relations as elliptical galaxies, while pseudobulges are usually outliers. The NIR colours of classical bulges and pseudobulges indicate that their ages are not radically different despite their spread in luminosity, but we noticed that classical bulges are more luminous than pseudobulges, therefore, this property provides a complementary bulge classification criterion. We included pseudobulges from other studies to strengthen the tendencies seen for pseudobulges in our sample. From the SRs for BHs, we found that pseudobulges do not follow SRs for early-type galaxies and classical bulges. Additionally, the lack of correlation between BHs and discs may indicate these structures have not coevolved. From the revision of SRs, we present a sample of galaxies likely to host SMBHs or UMBHs, which are suitable for dynamical BH mass determination from the ground.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02546 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relation between the scale length, rs, in this work using 2MASS data and rs from the S 4G survey. The solid black line is the linear fit, while the dotted grey line represents a 1-1 line and the dashed lines represent the scatter of the relation. 3 RESULTS We compare our results with previous galaxy photometry studies below and present fundamental SRs for structural galaxy parameters, such as the FP and its projecti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relation between absolute magnitude and S´ersic index n (LCR) for objects in our sample in the three bands of 2MASS (J, H, Ks). Vertical dashed lines indicate n = 2. Red-filled circles represent classical bulges; the blue ones are pseudobulges according to our classification (§2.6). In contrast, the red points inside black circles are the ETGs (indicated by the label E+S0) galaxies. M 32 (classified as classical) an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Faber-Jackson relation (FJR) for galaxies and bulges in our sample in the 2MASS bands. The horizontal black dashed line at log σ = 2.11 indicates the division between bulges and pseudobulges. Symbols represent the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Luminosity-Size relation (LSR) for galaxies and bulges in our sample for the three bands of 2MASS. Symbols and colours are the same as in previous images. The red dashed line is the linear fit for the classical bulges, the blue dashed line is for pseudobulges, and the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Fundamental Plane (FP) for galaxies and bulges of our sample. The three bands of 2MASS are shown. The black line is the linear fit for the whole sample. Symbols and colours represent the same as in previous images. and M•-σe, respectively. When more pseudobulges ar…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Colour-Magnitude Relation (CMR) for colours J − H (top panel), H − Ks (middle panel), and J − Ks (bottom panel), while on the x-axes we plot the total bulge luminosity in the Ks band. Symbols and colours are the same as in previous images. The grey solid line represent…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) for the galaxies in our sample. Classical bulges and pseudobulges are coloured in the same way as previously. The three bands of 2MASS are shown. Symbols and colours are the same as in previous images. The black line is the linear fit fo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The LSRd correlation between luminosity (Ldisc) and scale length (rs) for discs of galaxies in our sample. Discs of classical bulges and pseudobulges are coloured the same way as previously. The three bands of 2MASS are shown. Symbols and colours are the same as in pre…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlation between the SMBH mass and luminosity of the bulge in the three bands of 2MASS. As previously mentioned, red-filled circles represent classical bulges, and the blue ones are pseudobulges according to our classification, while the red points inside black cir…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Correlation between the SMBH mass and total galaxy luminosity in the three bands of 2MASS. Symbols and colours represent the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Correlation between the SMBH mass and effective radius in the three bands of 2MASS. Symbols and colours represent the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Correlation between the SMBH mass and S´ersic index n in the three bands of 2MASS. Symbols and colours represent the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left panel: Correlation between the SMBH mass and central velocity dispersion (σ). Right panel: Correlation between the SMBH and the effective velocity dispersion (σe) for some galaxies of our sample. Red and blue dotted lines are the linear fit for classical and pseu…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Relation between the SMBH mass and rotation ve￾locity (Vrot) for some galaxies of our sample. Symbols and colours represent the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

180 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A \ n orve C., 2012, PhD thesis . INAOE

    2012

  2. [2]

    arXiv:2501.10079

    A \ n orve C., Ulises Reyes-Amador O., R \' os-L \'o pez E., de Ram \'o n Tadeo D., L \'o pez-Cruz O., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250110079A p. arXiv:2501.10079

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.10079 2025

  3. [3]

    Akaike H., 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ITAC...19..716A 19, 716

    1974

  4. [4]

    E., White R

    Albert C. E., White R. A., Morgan W. W., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154935 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...211..309A 211, 309

    work page doi:10.1086/154935 1977

  5. [5]

    F., Schade D., L\'opez-Cruz O., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...460L..89B 460, L89

    Barrientos L. F., Schade D., L\'opez-Cruz O., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...460L..89B 460, L89

    work page doi:10.1086/309981 1996

  6. [6]

    A., 1959, @doi [ ] 10.1086/127346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959PASP...71..106B 71, 106

    Baum W. A., 1959, @doi [ ] 10.1086/127346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959PASP...71..106B 71, 106

    doi:10.1086/127346 1959

  7. [7]

    P., Morgan W

    Bautz L. P., Morgan W. W., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...162L.149B 162, L149

    doi:10.1086/180643 1970

  8. [9]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.3014B 477, 3014

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty768 2018

Show all 180 references
  1. [10]

    F., de Jong R

    Bell E. F., de Jong R. S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...550..212B 550, 212

    2001 doi

  2. [11]

    Bender R., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...631..280B 631, 280

    2005 doi

  3. [12]

    E., Fisher D

    Bender R., Kormendy J., Cornell M. E., Fisher D. B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807...56B 807, 56

    2015 doi

  4. [13]

    N., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210110355B p

    Bennert V. N., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210110355B p. arXiv:2101.10355

    2021 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Berendsen H. J. C., 2011, Fitting functions to data. Cambridge University Press, p. 84–110

    2011

  6. [15]

    Bernardi M., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125.1866B 125, 1866

    2003 doi

  7. [16]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    1996 doi

  8. [17]

    R., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..186B 594, 186

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..186B 594, 186

    2003 doi

  9. [18]

    Bournaud F., Combes F., Semelin B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00096.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364L..18B 364, L18

    2005

  10. [19]

    Bower R., 2013, Clusters of Galaxies . p. 265, @doi 10.1007/978-94-007-5609-0_6

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    J., 2013, in Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Knapen J

    Buta R. J., 2013, in Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Knapen J. H., eds, , Secular Evolution of Galaxies. p. 155, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1304.3529

    2013 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    311, Galaxy Masses as Constraints of Formation Models

    Cappellari M., 2015, in Cappellari M., Courteau S., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 311, Galaxy Masses as Constraints of Formation Models. pp 20--30 ( @eprint arXiv 1410.7329 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921315003324

    2015 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Cappellari M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1709C 432, 1709

    2013 doi

  14. [24]

    Carr B., K \"u hnel F., Visinelli L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.2029C 501, 2029

    2021 doi

  15. [25]

    Catal \'a n-Torrecilla C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a6d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848...87C 848, 87

    2017 doi

  16. [26]

    V., Melchior A.-L., Zolotukhin I

    Chilingarian I. V., Melchior A.-L., Zolotukhin I. Y., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16506.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405.1409C 405, 1409

    2010

  17. [28]

    A., van den Bosch F

    Courteau S., Dutton A. A., van den Bosch F. C., MacArthur L. A., Dekel A., McIntosh D. H., Dale D. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..203C 671, 203

    2007 doi

  18. [29]

    Courteau S., et al., 2014, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.86.47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014RvMP...86...47C 86, 47

    2014 doi

  19. [30]

    D'Onofrio M., Marziani P., Chiosi C., 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2021.694554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021FrASS...8..157D 8, 157

    2021

  20. [31]

    A., Sunayama T., Oguri M., Lin Y.-T., Huang S., Park Y., Takada M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.4016D 507, 4016

    Dalal R., Strauss M. A., Sunayama T., Oguri M., Lin Y.-T., Huang S., Park Y., Takada M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.4016D 507, 4016

    2021 doi

  21. [32]

    Di Matteo T., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..604D 433, 604

    2005 doi

  22. [33]

    S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..150D 668, 150

    Diehl S., Statler T. S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..150D 668, 150

    2007 doi

  23. [34]

    J., Romano J

    Disney M. J., Romano J. D., Garcia-Appadoo D. A., West A. A., Dalcanton J. J., Cortese L., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature07366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.455.1082D 455, 1082

    2008 doi

  24. [35]

    Djorgovski S., Davis M., 1987, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...313...59D 313, 59

    1987 doi

  25. [36]

    Dressler A., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...222...23D 222, 23

    1978 doi

  26. [37]

    L., Faber S

    Dressler A., Lynden-Bell D., Burstein D., Davies R. L., Faber S. M., Terlevich R., Wegner G., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...313...42D 313, 42

    1987 doi

  27. [38]

    R., De Propris R., Gonzalez A

    Eisenhardt P. R., De Propris R., Gonzalez A. H., Stanford S. A., Wang M., Dickinson M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..169..225E 169, 225

    2007 doi

  28. [39]

    L., S \'a nchez S

    Ellison S. L., S \'a nchez S. F., Ibarra-Medel H., Antonio B., Mendel J. T., Barrera-Ballesteros J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.2039E 474, 2039

    2018 doi

  29. [40]

    Erwin P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.4039E 446, 4039

    2015 doi

  30. [41]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875L...6E 875, L6

    2019 doi

  31. [42]

    M., Jackson R

    Faber S. M., Jackson R. E., 1976, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/154215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...204..668F 204, 668

    1976 doi

  32. [43]

    M., Dressler A., Davies R

    Faber S. M., Dressler A., Davies R. L., Burstein D., Lynden Bell D., Terlevich R., Wegner G., 1987, in Faber S. M., ed., Nearly Normal Galaxies. From the Planck Time to the Present. p. 175

    1987

  33. [44]

    C., Lasenby A

    Fabian A. C., Lasenby A. N., 2019, Astrophysical Black Holes ( @eprint arXiv 1911.04305 )

    2019 arXiv

  34. [45]

    J., Mihos J

    Feldmeier J. J., Mihos J. C., Morrison H. L., Rodney S. A., Harding P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...575..779F 575, 779

    2002 doi

  35. [46]

    740, A Pan-Chromatic View of Clusters of Galaxies and the Large-Scale Structure

    Feretti L., Giovannini G., 2008, in Plionis M., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Hughes D., eds, , Vol. 740, A Pan-Chromatic View of Clusters of Galaxies and the Large-Scale Structure. p. 24, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4020-6941-3_5

    2008 doi

  36. [47]

    Ferrarese L., Ford H., 2005, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-005-3947-6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..116..523F 116, 523

    2005 doi

  37. [48]

    Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/312838 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539L...9F 539, L9

    2000 doi

  38. [49]

    Ferrarese L., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...644L..21F 644, L21

    2006 doi

  39. [50]

    B., Drory N., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136..773F 136, 773

    Fisher D. B., Drory N., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136..773F 136, 773

    2008 doi

  40. [51]

    B., Drory N., 2016, in Laurikainen E., Peletier R., Gadotti D., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol

    Fisher D. B., Drory N., 2016, in Laurikainen E., Peletier R., Gadotti D., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 418, Galactic Bulges. p. 41 ( @eprint arXiv 1512.02230 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-19378-6_3

    2016 arXiv

  41. [52]

    C., 1970, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/150474 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...160..811F 160, 811

    Freeman K. C., 1970, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/150474 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...160..811F 160, 811

    1970 doi

  42. [53]

    A., Quillen A

    Frogel J. A., Quillen A. C., Pogge R. W., 1996, Optical and infrared images of galaxies: What's to be learned? . p. 65, @doi 10.1007/978-94-009-0335-7_7

    1996 doi

  43. [54]

    Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., White S. D. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10548.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370.1106G 370, 1106

    2006

  44. [55]

    Gebhardt K., et al., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/312840 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539L..13G 539, L13

    2000 doi

  45. [56]

    Gebhardt K., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.2469G 122, 2469

    2001 doi

  46. [57]

    289, Advancing the Physics of Cosmic Distances

    Giovanelli R., 2013, in de Grijs R., ed., IAU Symposium Vol. 289, Advancing the Physics of Cosmic Distances. pp 296--303 ( @eprint arXiv 1304.0346 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921312021588

    2013 arXiv

  47. [58]

    D., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Yee H

    Gladders M. D., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Yee H. K. C., Kodama T., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305858 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501..571G 501, 571

    1998 doi

  48. [59]

    M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..47G 562, A47

    Gonz \'a lez Delgado R. M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..47G 562, A47

    2014 doi

  49. [60]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...581A.103G 581, A103

    Gonz \'a lez Delgado R. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...581A.103G 581, A103

    2015 doi

  50. [61]

    W., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....121..820G 121, 820

    Graham A. W., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....121..820G 121, 820

    2001 doi

  51. [63]

    W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...680..143G 680, 143

    Graham A. W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...680..143G 680, 143

    2008 doi

  52. [64]

    W., 2013, Elliptical and Disk Galaxy Structure and Modern Scaling Laws

    Graham A. W., 2013, Elliptical and Disk Galaxy Structure and Modern Scaling Laws . p. 91, @doi 10.1007/978-94-007-5609-0_2

    2013 doi

  53. [65]

    E., Ho L

    Greene J. E., Ho L. C., Barth A. J., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/592078 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688..159G 688, 159

    2008 doi

  54. [66]

    O., Gebhardt K., Faber S

    G \"u ltekin K., Richstone D. O., Gebhardt K., Faber S. M., Lauer T. R., Bender R., Kormendy J., Pinkney J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...38G 741, 38

    2011 doi

  55. [67]

    H \"a ring N., Rix H.-W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604L..89H 604, L89

    2004 doi

  56. [68]

    M., Oegerle W

    Hill J. M., Oegerle W. R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AJ....106..831H 106, 831

    1993 doi

  57. [71]

    C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668...94H 668, 94

    Ho L. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668...94H 668, 94

    2007 doi

  58. [72]

    C., Greene J

    Ho L. C., Greene J. E., Filippenko A. V., Sargent W. L. W., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement] 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..183....1H 183, 1

    2009 doi

  59. [73]

    Irwin J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab25f6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158...21I 158, 21

    2019 doi

  60. [74]

    Izquierdo-Villalba D., Bonoli S., Spinoso D., Rosas-Guevara Y., Henriques B. M. B., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488..609I 488, 609

    2019 doi

  61. [75]

    H., 2000, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316603 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112.1008J 112, 1008

    Jarrett T. H., 2000, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316603 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112.1008J 112, 1008

    2000 doi

  62. [76]

    Jarrett T., 2004, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1071/AS04050 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASA...21..396J 21, 396

    2004 doi

  63. [77]

    H., Chester T., Cutri R., Schneider S., Skrutskie M., Huchra J

    Jarrett T. H., Chester T., Cutri R., Schneider S., Skrutskie M., Huchra J. P., 2000a, @doi [Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/301330 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....119.2498J 119, 2498

    doi

  64. [78]

    P., Mader J., 2000b, @doi [Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/301426 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120..298J 120, 298

    Jarrett T.-H., Chester T., Cutri R., Schneider S., Rosenberg J., Huchra J. P., Mader J., 2000b, @doi [Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/301426 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120..298J 120, 298

    doi

  65. [79]

    H., Chester T., Cutri R., Schneider S

    Jarrett T. H., Chester T., Cutri R., Schneider S. E., Huchra J. P., 2003, @doi [Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/345794 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..525J 125, 525

    2003 doi

  66. [80]

    E., Ho L

    Jiang Y.-F., Greene J. E., Ho L. C., Xiao T., Barth A. J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...68J 742, 68

    2011 doi

  67. [81]

    Jorgensen I., Franx M., Kjaergaard P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/276.4.1341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.276.1341J 276, 1341

    1995 doi

  68. [82]

    C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665.1489K 665, 1489

    Kelly B. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665.1489K 665, 1489

    2007 doi

  69. [83]

    King A., Pounds K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..115K 53, 115

    2015 doi

  70. [84]

    Kluge M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab733b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...43K 247, 43

    2020 doi

  71. [85]

    Kodama T., Arimoto N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9609160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...320...41K 320, 41

    1997 doi arXiv

  72. [86]

    Kormendy J., 1977, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/155687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...218..333K 218, 333

    1977 doi

  73. [87]

    H., eds, , Secular Evolution of Galaxies

    Kormendy J., 2013, in Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Knapen J. H., eds, , Secular Evolution of Galaxies. p. 1, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1311.2609

    2013 doi arXiv

  74. [88]

    Kormendy J., Djorgovski S., 1989, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.001315 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ARA

    1989

  75. [89]

    C., 2013, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA

    2013 doi

  76. [90]

    J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..603K 42, 603

    Kormendy J., Kennicutt Robert C. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..603K 42, 603

    2004

  77. [91]

    Kormendy J., Richstone D., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA&A..33..581K 33, 581

    1995

  78. [92]

    B., Cornell M

    Kormendy J., Fisher D. B., Cornell M. E., Bender R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..216K 182, 216

    2009 doi

  79. [93]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723...54K 723, 54

    Kormendy J., Drory N., Bender R., Cornell M. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723...54K 723, 54

    2010 doi

  80. [94]

    K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506...98K 506, 98

    Kumar A., Das M., Kataria S. K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506...98K 506, 98

    2021 doi

  81. [95]

    L \"a sker R., Ferrarese L., van de Ven G., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...69L 780, 69

    doi

  82. [96]

    L \"a sker R., Ferrarese L., van de Ven G., Shankar F., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...70L 780, 70

    doi

  83. [97]

    R., et al., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/518223 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662..808L 662, 808

    Lauer T. R., et al., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/518223 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662..808L 662, 808

    2007 doi

  84. [98]

    Laurikainen E., Salo H., Buta R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09404.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362.1319L 362, 1319

    2005

  85. [99]

    J., Nagai D., Finner K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A..55L 686, A55

    Lee W., Pillepich A., ZuHone J., Nelson D., Jee M. J., Nagai D., Finner K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A..55L 686, A55

    2024 doi

  86. [100]

    A., van den Bergh S., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJS...34..381L 34, 381

    Leir A. A., van den Bergh S., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJS...34..381L 34, 381

    1977 doi

  87. [101]

    Li Y.-T., Chen L.-W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4084L 482, 4084

    2019 doi

  88. [102]

    Lian J., Yan R., Blanton M., Kong X., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.4679L 472, 4679

    2017 doi

  89. [103]

    J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617..879L 617, 879

    Lin Y.-T., Mohr J. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617..879L 617, 879

    2004 doi

  90. [104]

    O., Corbally C

    L \'o pez-Cruz O., 2003, in Gray R. O., Corbally C. J., Philip A. G. D., eds, The Garrison Festschrift. p. 109

    2003

  91. [105]

    L \'o pez-Cruz O., Yee H. K. C., Brown J. P., Jones C., Forman W., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475L..97L 475, L97

    1997 doi

  92. [106]

    F., Gladders M

    L \'o pez-Cruz O., Schade D., Barrientos L. F., Gladders M. D., Yee H. K. C., Kodama T., 2002, Excursions into the evoluton of early-type galaxies . pp 269--276, @doi 10.1007/978-94-010-0393-3_51

    2002 doi

  93. [107]

    A., Yee H

    L \'o pez-Cruz O., Barkhouse W. A., Yee H. K. C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614..679L 614, 679

    2004 doi

  94. [108]

    M., Ibarra-Medel H

    L \'o pez-Cruz O., A \ n orve C., Birkinshaw M., Worrall D. M., Ibarra-Medel H. J., Barkhouse W. A., Torres-Papaqui J. P., Motta V., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/795/2/L31 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795L..31L 795, L31

    2014 doi

  95. [109]

    Cambridge University Press, pp 125--133

    Lyons L., 1989, Statistics for Nuclear and Particle Physicists . Cambridge University Press, pp 125--133

    1989

  96. [110]

    Magorrian J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115.2285M 115, 2285

    1998 doi

  97. [111]

    M., Cimatti A., Daddi E., Pozzetti L., Vanzi L., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04628.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.326..745M 326, 745

    Mannucci F., Basile F., Poggianti B. M., Cimatti A., Daddi E., Pozzetti L., Vanzi L., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04628.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.326..745M 326, 745

    2001

  98. [112]

    K., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589L..21M 589, L21

    Marconi A., Hunt L. K., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589L..21M 589, L21

    2003 doi

  99. [113]

    A., Morgan W

    Matthews T. A., Morgan W. W., Schmidt M., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1086/147890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ApJ...140...35M 140, 35

    1964 doi

  100. [114]

    J., Ma C.-P., Murphy J

    McConnell N. J., Ma C.-P., Murphy J. D., Gebhardt K., Lauer T. R., Graham J. R., Wright S. A., Richstone D. O., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756..179M 756, 179

    2012 doi

  101. [115]

    Mehrgan K., Thomas J., Saglia R., Mazzalay X., Erwin P., Bender R., Kluge M., Fabricius M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..195M 887, 195

    2019 doi

  102. [116]

    Mei S., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...644..759M 644, 759

    2006 doi

  103. [117]

    H., Beckman J

    Merritt D., Ferrarese L., 2001, in Knapen J. H., Beckman J. E., Shlosman I., Mahoney T. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 249, The Central Kiloparsec of Starbursts and AGN: The La Palma Connection. p. 335 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0107134 )

    2001 arXiv

  104. [118]

    V., Rodr \' guez-Puebla A., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..800M 521, 800

    Montenegro-Taborda D., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Pillepich A., Avila-Reese V., Sales L. V., Rodr \' guez-Puebla A., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..800M 521, 800

    2023 doi

  105. [119]

    Moore B., Katz N., Lake G., Dressler A., Oemler A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1038/379613a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.379..613M 379, 613

    1996 doi

  106. [120]

    W., Lesh J

    Morgan W. W., Lesh J. R., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148422 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142.1364M 142, 1364

    1965 doi

  107. [121]

    W., Kayser S., White R

    Morgan W. W., Kayser S., White R. A., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...199..545M 199, 545

    1975 doi

  108. [122]

    B., van den Bergh S., Abraham R

    Nair P. B., van den Bergh S., Abraham R. G., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...715..606N 715, 606

    2010 doi

  109. [123]

    G., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/734/2/L31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734L..31N 734, L31

    Nair P., van den Bergh S., Abraham R. G., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/734/2/L31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734L..31N 734, L31

    2011 doi

  110. [124]

    P., Thomas J., Bender R., Davies R

    Nowak N., Saglia R. P., Thomas J., Bender R., Davies R. I., Gebhardt K., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13960.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1629N 391, 1629

    2008

  111. [125]

    A., Djorgovski S

    Pahre M. A., Djorgovski S. G., de Carvalho R. R., 1998, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/300544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116.1591P 116, 1591

    1998 doi

  112. [126]

    Paturel G., Petit C., Prugniel P., Theureau G., Rousseau J., Brouty M., Dubois P., Cambr \'e sy L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...412...45P 412, 45

    2003 doi

  113. [127]

    Peebles P. J. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.4386P 498, 4386

    2020 doi

  114. [128]

    Y., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1098P 671, 1098

    Peng C. Y., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1098P 671, 1098

    2007 doi

  115. [129]

    Y., Ho L

    Peng C. Y., Ho L. C., Impey C. D., Rix H.-W., 2002, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/340952 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124..266P 124, 266

    2002 doi

  116. [130]

    Y., Ho L

    Peng C. Y., Ho L. C., Impey C. D., Rix H.-W., 2010, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139.2097P 139, 2097

    2010 doi

  117. [131]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116459 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...536A...8P 536, A8

    2011 doi

  118. [132]

    E., Blakeslee J

    Quenneville M. E., Blakeslee J. P., Ma C.-P., Greene J. E., Gwyn S. D. J., Ciccone S., Nyiri B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..249Q 527, 249

    2024 doi

  119. [133]

    H., Naab T., Thomas J., Frigo M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..113R 864, 113

    Rantala A., Johansson P. H., Naab T., Thomas J., Frigo M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..113R 864, 113

    2018 doi

  120. [134]

    J., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Alvira-Enr \' quez J., Iacobuta G., Valerdi M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5952R 507, 5952

    R \' os-L \'o pez E., A \ n orve C., Ibarra-Medel H. J., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Alvira-Enr \' quez J., Iacobuta G., Valerdi M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5952R 507, 5952

    2021 doi

  121. [135]

    S., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/110874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969AJ.....74..859R 74, 859

    Roberts M. S., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/110874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969AJ.....74..859R 74, 859

    1969 doi

  122. [136]

    J., Sastry G

    Rood H. J., Sastry G. N., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/129128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971PASP...83..313R 83, 313

    1971 doi

  123. [137]

    J., Leroy A

    Rousseeuw P. J., Leroy A. M., 1987, Robust Regression and Outlier Detection . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc

    1987

  124. [138]

    P., Erwin P., Saglia R

    Rusli S. P., Erwin P., Saglia R. P., Thomas J., Fabricius M., Bender R., Nowak N., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/6/160 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146..160R 146, 160

    2013 doi

  125. [139]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818...47S 818, 47

    Saglia R. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818...47S 818, 47

    2016 doi

  126. [140]

    W., Davis B

    Sahu N., Graham A. W., Davis B. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab50b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...10S 887, 10

    2019 doi

  127. [141]

    Salo H., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..219....4S 219, 4

    2015 doi

  128. [142]

    Sandage A., Visvanathan N., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223..707S 223, 707

    1978 doi

  129. [143]

    K., Risaliti G., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18229.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.1479S 413, 1479

    Sani E., Marconi A., Hunt L. K., Risaliti G., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18229.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.1479S 413, 1479

    2011

  130. [144]

    L., 2002, in Feretti L., Gioia I

    Sarazin C. L., 2002, in Feretti L., Gioia I. M., Giovannini G., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 272, Merging Processes in Galaxy Clusters. pp 1--38 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0105418 ), @doi 10.1007/0-306-48096-4_1

    2002 arXiv

  131. [145]

    L., 2008, in Plionis M., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Hughes D., eds, , Vol

    Sarazin C. L., 2008, in Plionis M., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Hughes D., eds, , Vol. 740, A Pan-Chromatic View of Clusters of Galaxies and the Large-Scale Structure. p. 24, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4020-6941-3_1

    2008 doi

  132. [146]

    Saulder C., Steer I., Snaith O., Park C., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190512970S

    2019

  133. [147]

    Savorgnan G. A. D., Graham A. W., Marconi A. r., Sani E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817...21S 817, 21

    2016 doi

  134. [148]

    G., Yee H

    Schade D., Carlberg R. G., Yee H. K. C., L\'opez-Cruz O., Ellingson E., 1996a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...464L..63S 464, L63

    doi

  135. [149]

    G., Yee H

    Schade D., Carlberg R. G., Yee H. K. C., L\'opez-Cruz O., Ellingson E., 1996b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465L.103S 465, L103

    doi

  136. [150]

    F., L \'o pez-Cruz O., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...477L..17S 477, L17

    Schade D., Barrientos L. F., L \'o pez-Cruz O., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...477L..17S 477, L17

    1997 doi

  137. [151]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/305772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  138. [152]

    M., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJS...64..643S 64, 643

    Schombert J. M., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJS...64..643S 64, 643

    1987 doi

  139. [153]

    arXiv:1107.1728

    Schombert J., 2011, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1107.1728S p. arXiv:1107.1728

    2011 arXiv

  140. [154]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..214S 152, 214

    Schombert J. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..214S 152, 214

    2016 doi

  141. [155]

    K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS11059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PASA...29..174S 29, 174

    Schombert J., Smith A. K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS11059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PASA...29..174S 29, 174

    2012 doi

  142. [156]

    Schulze A., Gebhardt K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729...21S 729, 21

    2011 doi

  143. [157]

    Schwarz G., 1978, Annals of Statistics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978AnSta...6..461S 6, 461

    1978

  144. [158]

    Scodeggio M., Gavazzi G., Belsole E., Pierini D., Boselli A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02106.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.301.1001S 301, 1001

    1998

  145. [159]

    L., 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes, Observatorio Astronómico, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Agentina

    S\'ersic J. L., 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes, Observatorio Astronómico, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Agentina

    1968

  146. [160]

    Shen J., Gebhardt K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711..484S 711, 484

    2010 doi

  147. [161]

    Sheth K., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1086/657638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122.1397S 122, 1397

    2010 doi

  148. [163]

    J., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    1998

  149. [164]

    S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53...51S 53, 51

    Somerville R. S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53...51S 53, 51

    2015 doi

  150. [165]

    F., Rood H

    Struble M. F., Rood H. J., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJS...63..555S 63, 555

    1987 doi

  151. [166]

    L., 1987, in de Zeeuw P

    Tonry J. L., 1987, in de Zeeuw P. T., ed., Vol. 127, Structure and Dynamics of Elliptical Galaxies. pp 89--98, @doi 10.1007/978-94-009-3971-4_7

    1987 doi

  152. [167]

    M., Andernach H., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22044.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.2047T 427, 2047

    Tovmassian H. M., Andernach H., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22044.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.2047T 427, 2047

    2012

  153. [168]

    pp 394--405

    Tremaine S., 1990, in Wielen R., ed., , Dynamics and Interactions of Galaxies. pp 394--405

    1990

  154. [169]

    Tremaine S., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..740T 574, 740

    2002 doi

  155. [170]

    B., Fisher J

    Tully R. B., Fisher J. R., 1977, Astronomy and Astrophysics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977A

    1977

  156. [171]

    B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...86T 146, 86

    Tully R. B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...86T 146, 86

    2013 doi

  157. [172]

    L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..137V 628, 137

    Valluri M., Ferrarese L., Merritt D., Joseph C. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..137V 628, 137

    2005 doi

  158. [173]

    L., Arimoto N., Nakamura O., Peletier R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...551L.127V 551, L127

    Vazdekis A., Kuntschner H., Davies R. L., Arimoto N., Nakamura O., Peletier R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...551L.127V 551, L127

    2001 doi

  159. [174]

    Verheijen M. A. W., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323887 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...563..694V 563, 694

    2001 doi

  160. [175]

    N., Kauffmann G., White S

    Von Der Linden A., Best P. N., Kauffmann G., White S. D. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11940.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379..867V 379, 867

    2007

  161. [176]

    Weinberger R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.4056W 479, 4056

    2018 doi

  162. [177]

    Willmer C. N. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...47W 236, 47

    2018 doi

  163. [178]

    Zhu K., Li R., Cao X., Lu S., Cappellari M., Mao S., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acd58a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23h5001Z 23, 085001

    2023 doi

  164. [179]

    de Graaff A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913..103D 913, 103

    2021 doi

  165. [180]

    S., 1996a, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..118..557D 118, 557

    de Jong R. S., 1996a, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..118..557D 118, 557

  166. [181]

    S., 1996b, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...313..377D 313, 377

    de Jong R. S., 1996b, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...313..377D 313, 377

  167. [182]

    de Nicola S., Marconi A., Longo G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..600D 490, 600

    2019 doi

  168. [183]

    H., de Vaucouleurs A., Shapley H., 1964, Reference catalogue of bright galaxies

    de Vaucouleurs G. H., de Vaucouleurs A., Shapley H., 1964, Reference catalogue of bright galaxies

    1964

  169. [184]

    J., Buta R

    de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin Herold G. J., Buta R. J., Paturel G., Fouque P., 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    1991

  170. [185]

    van den Bosch R. C. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831..134V 831, 134

    2016 doi

  171. [186]

    van den Bosch R. C. E., de Zeeuw P. T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15832.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1770V 401, 1770

    2010

  172. [187]

    C., Freeman K

    van der Kruit P. C., Freeman K. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-083109-153241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ARA&A..49..301V 49, 301

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.