Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 86 references

UGC 1378 -- a Milky Way-sized galaxy embedded in a giant low-surface brightness disc

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read UGC 1378's giant disc did not form in a recent major merger, its stellar velocity dispersion shows.

desk verdict A solid single-object study with genuinely new kinematics, but the no-major-merger conclusion rests on a single-component stability assumption that the data cannot yet support. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11383 v1 pith:3G2FXSQO submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Anna Saburova , Igor Chilingarian , Anastasia Kasparova , Ivan Katkov , Daniel Fabricant , Roman Uklein This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords galaxies:kinematicsanddynamicsevolutionlow-surface-brightnessgalaxiesgiantdiscsstellarvelocitydispersionToomrestabilitygasaccretionUGC1378
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

Giant low-surface-brightness (gLSB) disc galaxies are rare and their formation is debated, with the leading options being a recent major merger or slow gas accretion. This paper focuses on UGC 1378, a Milky Way-sized galaxy embedded in a gLSB disc extending to 50 kpc, and uses deep spectroscopy plus multi-band imaging to test the two scenarios. It finds that the stellar velocity dispersion of the inner high-surface-brightness disc is close to the value expected for a marginally gravitationally stable disc, which a recent major merger would have raised by heating the disc. The paper therefore concludes that the giant disc formed not from a catastrophic merger but from continued accretion of metal-poor gas, probably from a cosmic filament, in a low-density environment that preserved the structure. If right, this favours an accretion-driven, two-stage formation history for at least some gLSB galaxies and narrows the role of major mergers in building the largest stellar discs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the Toomre marginal-stability criterion for a thin isothermal disc, written as $(\sigma_r)_\mathrm{crit} = Q_T \cdot 3.36\,G\,\Sigma_d / \kappa$, with $\kappa$ the epicyclic frequency, $\Sigma_d$ the disc surface density, and $Q_T$ a stability parameter whose radial dependence (roughly 1.2–3, slowly increasing outward) the paper takes from numerical simulations of thick exponential discs. The measured line-of-sight stellar velocity dispersion at two disc scale lengths is deprojected into a radial dispersion $\sigma_r$ using the Lindblad epicyclic relation $\sigma_r = (2\Omega/\kappa)\,\sigma_\phi$ and a fixed ratio $\sigma_z/\sigma_r = 0.6$, so that the stability equation can be solved for the disc surface density and mass-to-light ratio. This machinery converts a kinematic snapshot into a statement about the disc's thermal history: a disc sitting at the stability threshold cannot have been strongly heated by a violent merger, because such heating would push its dispersion well above the critical value. It is this conversion, with its explicit assumptions, that carries the paper's central conclusion.

What would settle it

Take deep integral-field spectra across the full disc, especially at radii 30–50 kpc where the low-surface-brightness disc dominates the light, and measure its stellar velocity dispersion directly: if the LSB disc's dispersion is comparable to or higher than the HSB disc's, or rises rather than declines with radius, then the disc has been kinematically heated and a recent major merger cannot be excluded. A second decisive test is to measure the disc's vertical-to-radial velocity anisotropy, for example from an edge-on stellar population decomposition, to check whether the assumed $\sigma_z/\sigma_r = 0.6$ actually holds; a significantly different value would shift the derived mass-to-light ratio away from the marginal-stability point and reopen the merger question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery, stated the way a sympathetic reader would state it, is that UGC 1378's Milky Way-like inner disc is dynamically cold: its measured stellar velocity dispersion, converted from the line-of-sight projection using the epicyclic approximation and an assumed vertical-to-radial dispersion ratio of 0.6, matches the value required for marginal gravitational stability at two disc scale lengths. By comparing the derived disc central surface density (about $\sim 1000\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$) with the photometric scale length, the paper obtains an r-band mass-to-light ratio of $2.88$, which lies above colour-based estimates ($1.02$ and $1.7$) but below a Salpeter-IMF stellar population estimate for the measured age and metallicity. The paper takes this near-coincidence as evidence that the HSB disc has been neither heavily heated nor strongly disrupted since its formation, making a recent major merger an unlikely origin for the surrounding 50-kpc low-surface-brightness disc. Complementary infrared star-formation maps show the LSB disc has a low star-formation surface density relative to its gas density, which the authors interpret as a sign of recent gas accretion that has not yet turned fully into stars. Together these observations support the paper's main claim: the giant disc was assembled quiescently, through accretion from a gas-rich reservoir, rather than through a catastrophic collision.

Load-bearing premise

The entire conclusion depends on assuming that UGC 1378's inner disc is exactly on the edge of gravitational stability at two scale lengths, so that the measured stellar motions can be used to infer how much mass the disc holds; if the disc is actually more stable or less stable than that threshold, or if the assumed ratio of vertical to radial stellar motions (0.6) is wrong, the derived disc mass and the 'no recent major merger' conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The major-merger formation scenario for giant low-surface-brightness discs does not apply to UGC 1378; the giant disc instead appears to have grown by quiescent gas accretion from a cosmic filament.
  • The low star-formation efficiency of the LSB disc relative to its gas density, combined with the disc's size, supports an ongoing or recent gas-accretion episode that has not yet fully converted gas into stars.
  • The kinematically derived disc mass-to-light ratio of 2.88 in the r band is higher than colour-based stellar population estimates, implying that colour-based masses may underestimate the stellar mass of HSB discs in gLSB galaxies.
  • The method of using stellar velocity dispersion with a marginal-stability assumption provides a way to test major-merger versus accretion formation scenarios in other gLSB galaxies where dispersion data can be obtained.
  • The galaxy's isolated, low-density environment appears central to preserving the giant disc, suggesting environment, not just gas supply, is a necessary condition for gLSB survival.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If UGC 1378 is representative of gLSB galaxies with intermediate disc sizes, the most extreme gLSBs like Malin 1 and UGC 1922 may still require mergers, implying a diversity of formation paths rather than a single mechanism.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same marginal-stability analysis to other gLSB galaxies with existing or future deep spectroscopy; a galaxy whose HSB disc is clearly hotter than marginal stability would be a candidate for the merger scenario even if its LSB disc looks quiet.
  • Because the stability argument treats the LSB disc only as a weak perturbation, future measurements of its stellar dynamics could either confirm the two-stage accretion picture or reveal that the outer disc is kinematically distinct, pointing to a different formation route.
  • The assumed fixed $\sigma_z/\sigma_r = 0.6$ is a single value; measuring the full velocity dispersion tensor with next-generation integral-field spectrographs would test whether the marginal-stability inference holds in detail.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents deep long-slit spectroscopy (6-m Russian telescope) and multi-band imaging (MMT/Binospec) of UGC 1378, a galaxy with a Milky Way-sized high-surface-brightness (HSB) disc embedded in an extended low-surface-brightness (LSB) disc. The authors decompose the light into a Sersic bulge and two exponential discs, measure stellar and gas kinematics, model the rotation curve with three dark halo profiles, and use the stellar velocity dispersion at two HSB disc scale lengths together with a marginal-stability criterion to infer an HSB disc mass-to-light ratio of M/L = 2.88. From the inferred near-marginal stability, they conclude that UGC 1378 did not undergo a recent major merger and argue that the giant LSB disc formed by cold gas accretion in an isolated environment. They also estimate star formation rates from WISE data and place the galaxy on the Schmidt-Kennicutt diagram.

Significance. If the central conclusion is correct, the paper provides an important counterexample to the major-merger formation scenario for giant low-surface-brightness galaxies and supports gas-accretion models. The observational work is careful: the reduction is described in detail, the data are made public via Zenodo, and the authors explicitly acknowledge important limitations (GALFIT error underestimates, Galactic cirrus contamination, lack of CO data, and the inability to measure the LSB disc velocity dispersion). The multi-halo mass modelling and the SFR analysis add value beyond the no-merger claim. However, the no-merger conclusion rests on a single, indirectly calibrated kinematic measurement, and the quantitative impact of the acknowledged LSB-disc light contamination is not assessed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3 (Eqs. 4-5), Table 2] The marginal-stability inference is applied at R = 2 R_d ≈ 48 arcsec. From the r-band parameters in Table 2, the HSB disc surface brightness at this radius is μ_HSB ≈ 22.05 mag arcsec^-2 and the LSB disc is μ_LSB ≈ 22.32 mag arcsec^-2, so the LSB disc contributes ≈44% of the r-band light. The quantity σ_obs entering Eq. (5) is therefore a luminosity-weighted blend of the two discs. The paper itself states in Section 3.3 that the data are not deep enough to measure the LSB disc's velocity dispersion. If the LSB disc is dynamically cold (e.g., σ_LSB ≈ 30 km/s against σ_HSB ≈ 70 km/s), the blended σ_obs is biased low by roughly 15-20%; because Σ_d in Eq. (4) scales linearly with σ_r, the derived central surface density and M/L = 2.88 are correspondingly biased low. A 20% correction would push M/L above the Salpeter-IMF upper limit of 3.3 quoted by the authors, invalidating the 'close to marginal stability' conclusion and, with it, the exclusion of a recent major merger. If the LSB disc is hot the bias goes the other way, but either way the single-component fit does not by itself constrain the HSB dispersion alone. The authors should either measure or model the two-component dispersion, or at minimum provide a sensitivity analysis over σ_LSB and show that the conclusion is robust.
  2. [Section 3.3, Table 3] There is an unresolved inconsistency in the mass modelling: the stability analysis yields (M/L_d)_r = 2.88 for the HSB disc, but the rotation-curve fit fixes the HSB disc mass-to-light ratio to 1.4 (following colour-based relations). No reconciliation is given, and Table 3 reports disc masses based on the latter value. Since the dark-to-luminous mass ratio inside the HSB disc (Conclusion iii) depends on the assumed HSB disc mass, the authors should justify the adopted value, discuss the difference, and show the sensitivity of the mass budget to M/L in the range 1.4-2.88.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2] The text reads 'thegalmer simulations' and should be 'the GAlMer simulations'.
  2. [Figure 7 caption] The caption appears to contain raw LaTeX escape sequences (e.g., '/s45 /s48/s44...') that render incorrectly; please fix the source.
  3. [References] The references for Fabricant et al. (2019) and Kansky et al. (2019) are given as incomplete 'arXiv e-prints' entries without arXiv identifiers or journal details; Kirby et al. (2016) is also incomplete.
  4. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'higher than the usually adopted B-band LSB limit of >22 mag arcsec^-2' is confusing: the authors mean brighter in surface brightness, but the numerical LSB classification criterion is μ0,B > 22, which their value of 22.14 satisfies.
  5. [Section 3.3, Eq. (4)] The epicyclic frequency appears as '<' in the typeset equation; it should be a kappa symbol for clarity.
  6. [Section 5, item (ii)] The wording 'close to that expected for its marginal gravitational stability' should be softened to 'consistent with marginal gravitational stability', since the mass-to-light ratio is inferred under that very assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the no-major-merger inference is a consistency test between the measured velocity dispersion and independent stellar-population mass-to-light ratios.

full rationale

The central claim (Conclusion ii) is that UGC 1378's HSB disc velocity dispersion is close to the marginal-stability value. The paper measures sigma_obs directly, converts it to sigma_r using standard epicyclic and sigma_z/sigma_r relations (Eq. 5, Lindblad formula, Shapiro et al. 2003), and then uses the Toomre/Khoperskov stability criterion (Eq. 4) to solve for the disc surface density and M/L = 2.88. This is a derived quantity, not a predicted one. The conclusion is drawn by comparing this stability-required M/L with independent stellar-population M/L estimates (1.02 from Roediger & Courteau, 1.7 from Bell et al., and 3.3 for a Salpeter IMF). Because 2.88 lies between these independent bounds, the consistency test has independent content; if the stability-required M/L were far outside the range, the marginal-stability hypothesis would be rejected. The prior that discs are marginally stable at 2Rd cites Zasov et al. (2011), a coauthored empirical study, but that is an externally falsifiable regularity based on other galaxies, not a uniqueness theorem that forces the conclusion. The acknowledged limitation in Section 3.3 that LSB-disc contamination cannot be evaluated from the data is a data caveat, not a circular step. No equation reduces to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is relabelled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central inference (no recent major merger) rests on the marginal-stability conversion from velocity dispersion to disc mass. Dark halo parameters and the LSB disc/bulge M/L are fitted to the rotation curve; the HSB disc M/L is fixed from photometry; the stability criterion and dispersion-anisotropy coefficient are imported from the literature. No genuinely new entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • HSB disc mass-to-light ratio (M/L)_HSB = 1.4 (fixed input)
    Chosen from photometric colours using Roediger & Courteau (2015) and Bell et al. (2003); not fitted, but a parameter choice that affects the mass model.
  • LSB disc mass-to-light ratio (M/L)_LSB = 1.08 (best fit, Table 3)
    Allowed to vary freely in the rotation curve mass model; Table 3 reports M/L = 1.08 for all three halo profiles.
  • Bulge mass-to-light ratio (M/L)_bulge = not reported separately
    Allowed to vary freely in the rotation curve mass model (Section 3.3), but not quoted independently in Table 3, indicating degeneracy with the halo fit.
  • Vertical-to-radial velocity dispersion ratio k = sigma_z/sigma_r = 0.6 (assumed)
    Taken from the measured range 0.5-0.8 (Shapiro et al. 2003); affects the conversion from observed LOS dispersion to radial dispersion in Eq. (5).
  • Burkert halo scale radius Rs = 4.83 kpc
    Fitted to the composite rotation curve (Fig. 4, Table 3).
  • Burkert halo central density rho0 = 183.38e-3 M_sun pc^-3
    Fitted to the rotation curve (Table 3).
  • NFW halo scale radius Rs = 11.51 kpc
    Fitted to the composite rotation curve (Table 3).
  • NFW halo central density rho0 = 31.99e-3 M_sun pc^-3
    Fitted to the rotation curve (Table 3).
  • Pseudo-isothermal halo scale radius Rs = 1.51 kpc
    Fitted to the composite rotation curve (Table 3).
  • Pseudo-isothermal halo central density rho0 = 432.88e-3 M_sun pc^-3
    Fitted to the rotation curve (Table 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The HSB disc of UGC 1378 is marginally gravitationally stable at two disc radial scale lengths (Toomre Q_T from Khoperskov et al. 2003).
    Used in Section 3.3 to convert the measured stellar velocity dispersion into a disc surface density (Eq. 4) and hence to derive the disc M/L and assess merger heating. The assumption is imported from literature, not verified for this galaxy.
  • standard math The epicyclic approximation and Lindblad formula sigma_r = 2 Omega sigma_phi / kappa relate the observed line-of-sight dispersion to the radial dispersion.
    Used in Eq. (5) to deproject the observed velocity dispersion.
  • domain assumption The vertical-to-radial dispersion ratio k = sigma_z/sigma_r = 0.6 (range 0.5-0.8) applies to UGC 1378.
    Adopted from Shapiro et al. (2003) measurements of disc galaxies; affects the inferred radial dispersion and hence the stability analysis.
  • domain assumption The distance (38.8 Mpc), inclination (59 deg), position angle (181 deg), and H I rotation curve/0th moment maps from Mishra et al. (2017) are correct.
    All physical scales, the deprojection, and the composite rotation curve rely on these externally measured quantities.
  • domain assumption The WISE 12 and 22 micron luminosities trace recent star formation via the Jarrett et al. (2013) calibrations.
    Used in Section 4.1 to estimate SFR and SFR surface densities for the HSB and LSB discs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UGC 1378 -- a Milky Way-sized galaxy embedded in a giant low-surface brightness disc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3G2FXSQO

@misc{pith2026190811383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UGC 1378 -- a Milky Way-sized galaxy embedded in a giant low-surface brightness disc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3G2FXSQO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11383}
}
read the original abstract

The dominant physical processes responsible for the formation and longevity of giant gaseous and stellar discs in galaxies remain controversial. Although they are rare (less than 10 confirmed as of now), giant low-surface brightness (gLSB) discy galaxies provide interesting insights given their extreme nature. We describe observations of UGC 1378 including deep spectroscopy with the Russian 6m telescope and multi-band imaging with Binospec at the MMT. Galaxy UGC 1378 has both high surface brightness and an extended low surface brightness discs. Our stellar velocity dispersion data for the high-surface brightness, Milky Way-sized, disc appears inconsistent with a recent major merger, a widely discussed formation scenario for the very extended low surface brightness disc. We estimate the star formation rates (SFR) from archival Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer data. The SFR surface density in the LSB disc is low relative to its gas density, consistent with recent gas accretion. We argue that the unusually large size of UGC 1378's disc may be the product of a rich gas reservoir (e.g. a cosmic filament) and an isolated environment that has preserved the giant disc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11383 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composite r, g, z-band image of UGC 1378. North is up, east is left, the image size is 7.2×10.1 arcmin. 2.2 Photometric observations We observed UGC 1378 in the g,r,z bands with the Binospec spec￾trograph/imager (Fabricant et al. 2019) mounted at the 6.5-meter converted MMT at Mt.Hopkins, Arizona during the Binospec com￾missioning run on 15 November 2017. The images were reduced using the Binospec pipeline (Kansky e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The g-band surface brightness profile of UGC 1378 with an overplotted best-fitting galfit model. HSB and LSB discs are shown as green and brown lines, bulge as a blue line, and the total model as a red line. The profiles are corrected for Galactic extinction and are not corrected for inclination. 3.3 Mass-modelling of the rotation curve We built UGC 1378’s composite rotation curve using H i (Mishra et al. 2017) and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The radial profiles of kinematics and stellar populations of UGC 1378 (PA = 181◦ ). From top to bottom: the slit position overlaid on a composite grz-image; LOS velocity of ionized gas measured in Hβ and [Oiii] lines (circles) and stars (solid line and shaded areas are for values and their uncertainties), the adopted systemic velocity is 2930 km s−1 ; LOS velocity dispersion of gas (circles) and stars (line); h3 and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panels: χ 2 map for the parameters of dark halo, the darker the colour, the lower the χ 2 and the better the fitting quality is. The contours refer to 1σ, 2σ and 3σ confidence limits. The parameters corresponding to the χ 2 minimum are shown by a cross in each map.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The r-band (left-hand column) and WISE band 3 (right-hand column) images of UGC 1378 with overlaid contours of H i density map taken from Mishra et al. (2017) and areas used for the estimates of SFR of HSB and LSB discs (central ellipse and a ring) . lower star formati…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The SFR surface density vs gas surface density. The LSB and HSB discs of UGC 1378 are shown as gray and black circles, respectively, and the open circle denotes the mean value for the whole galaxy. The gas surface density for UGC 1378 is computed as the H i surface den…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The g−r colour map corrected for Galactic extinction. We masked a region affected by a Galactic cirrus in the bottom of the map. North is up, east is left. indicate that H i-rich galaxies in some repects similar to UGC 1378 may accrete gas from an extended gas reservoi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    V., Zasov A

    Abramova O. V., Zasov A. V., 2011, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772911030012 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ARep...55..202A 55, 202

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772911030012 2011

  4. [4]

    L., Moiseev A

    Afanasiev V. L., Moiseev A. V., 2005, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/1.1883351 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AstL...31..194A 31, 194

    doi:10.1134/1.1883351 2005

  5. [5]

    F., McIntosh D

    Bell E. F., McIntosh D. H., Katz N., Weinberg M. D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378847 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..149..289B 149, 289

    doi:10.1086/378847 2003

  6. [6]

    A., Durand D., Handley T

    Bertin E., Mellier Y., Radovich M., Missonnier G., Didelon P., Morin B., 2002, in Bohlender D. A., Durand D., Handley T. H., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI. p. 228

    2002

  7. [7]

    Bigiel F., Leroy A., Walter F., Blitz L., Brinks E., de Blok W. J. G., Madore B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1194B 140, 1194

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1194 2010

  8. [8]

    Boissier S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681..244B 681, 244

    doi:10.1086/588580 2008

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Boissier S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629226 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Burkert A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309560 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...447L..25B 447, L25

    1995 doi

  3. [11]

    Cappellari M., Emsellem E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381875 , 116, 138

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    C., et al., 2016, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016arXiv161205560C p

    Chambers K. C., et al., 2016, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016arXiv161205560C p. arXiv:1612.05560 ( @eprint arXiv 1612.05560 )

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    241, IAU Symposium

    Chilingarian I., Prugniel P., Sil'Chenko O., Koleva M., 2007a, in Vazdekis A., Peletier R., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 241, IAU Symposium. pp 175--176 ( @eprint arXiv 0709.3047 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921307007752

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    V., Prugniel P., Sil'Chenko O

    Chilingarian I. V., Prugniel P., Sil'Chenko O. K., Afanasiev V. L., 2007b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11549.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.376.1033C 376, 1033

    2007

  7. [15]

    V., Novikova A

    Chilingarian I. V., Novikova A. P., Cayatte V., Combes F., Di Matteo P., Zasov A. V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911684 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    V., Di Matteo P., Combes F., Melchior A.-L., Semelin B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912938 , 518, A61

    Chilingarian I. V., Di Matteo P., Combes F., Melchior A.-L., Semelin B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912938 , 518, A61

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142..197C 142, 197

    Chomiuk L., Povich M. S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142..197C 142, 197

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Chung A., Bureau M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420988 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....127.3192C 127, 3192

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    H., Beckman J

    Comer \'o n S., Knapen J. H., Beckman J. E., Laurikainen E., Salo H., Mart \' nez-Valpuesta I., Buta R. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16057.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.2462C 402, 2462

    2010

  12. [20]

    Deeley S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx441 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.3934D 467, 3934

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Fabricant D., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190503320F

    2019

  14. [22]

    Fraternali F., Oosterloo T., Sancisi R., van Moorsel G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338102 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...562L..47F 562, L47

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    Fraternali F., van Moorsel G., Sancisi R., Oosterloo T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340358 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123.3124F 123, 3124

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

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

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

    1970 doi

  17. [25]

    Galaz G., Milovic C., Suc V., Busta L., Lizana G., Infante L., Royo S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/815/2/L29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815L..29G 815, L29

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Ger \'e b K., Janowiecki S., Catinella B., Cortese L., Kilborn V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty214 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..896G 476, 896

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Hagen L. M. Z., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826..210H 826, 210

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Huang S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/40 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793...40H 793, 40

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    H., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145....6J 145, 6

    Jarrett T. H., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145....6J 145, 6

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    I., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/226.4.747 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.226..747J 226, 747

    Jedrzejewski R. I., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/226.4.747 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.226..747J 226, 747

    1987 doi

  23. [31]

    Jester S., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....130..873J 130, 873

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    J \'o zsa G. I. G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066165 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    Kansky J., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190503321K

    2019

  26. [34]

    D., Kaisin S

    Karachentsev I. D., Kaisin S. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1241K 140, 1241

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    V., Saburova A

    Kasparova A. V., Saburova A. S., Katkov I. Y., Chilingarian I. V., Bizyaev D. V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1982 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437.3072K 437, 3072

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Y., Chilingarian I

    Katkov I. Y., Chilingarian I. V., 2011, in Evans I. N., Accomazzi A., Mink D. J., Rots A. H., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX. p. 143 ( @eprint arXiv 1012.4125 )

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305588 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..541K 498, 541

    1998 doi

  30. [38]

    V., Zasov A

    Khoperskov A. V., Zasov A. V., Tyurina N. V., 2003, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/1.1575851 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARep...47..357K 47, 357

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    N., Rizzi L., Held E

    Kirby E. N., Rizzi L., Held E. V., Cohen J. G., Cole A. A., Manning E. M., Skillman E. D., Weisz D. R., 2016, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161008505K ( @eprint arXiv 1610.08505 )

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kormendy J., Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA

    2004

  33. [41]

    C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08307.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.355..143K 355, 143

    Kregel M., van der Kruit P. C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08307.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.355..143K 355, 143

    2004

  34. [42]

    B., Tinsley B

    Larson R. B., Tinsley B. M., Caldwell C. N., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157917 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...237..692L 237, 692

    1980 doi

  35. [43]

    Le Borgne D., Rocca-Volmerange B., Prugniel P., Lan c on A., Fioc M., Soubiran C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200400044 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    2004 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Newman J

    Licquia T. C., Newman J. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...96L 806, 96

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx053 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1083L 467, 1083

    Lutz K. A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx053 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1083L 467, 1083

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    G., Das M., Omar A., Srivastava D

    Mishra A., Kantharia N. G., Das M., Omar A., Srivastava D. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2506 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.2741M 464, 2741

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177173 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ462563N 462, 563

    1996 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Cornell M

    O'Neil K., Bothun G. D., Cornell M. E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....113.1212O 113, 1212

    1997 doi

  41. [49]

    Oosterloo T., Fraternali F., Sancisi R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520332 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134.1019O 134, 1019

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    Pe \ n arrubia J., McConnachie A., Babul A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508656 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650L..33P 650, L33

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    Y., Ho L

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

    2002 doi

  44. [52]

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv264 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449...49R 449, 49

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Courteau S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1499 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3209R 452, 3209

    Roediger J. C., Courteau S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1499 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3209R 452, 3209

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    B., Wiegert J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19120.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416.1191R 416, 1191

    Romeo A. B., Wiegert J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19120.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416.1191R 416, 1191

    2011

  47. [55]

    N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3700R 449, 3700

    Roychowdhury S., Huang M.-L., Kauffmann G., Wang J., Chengalur J. N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3700R 449, 3700

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    S., 2011, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772911050064 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ARep...55..409S 55, 409

    Saburova A. S., 2011, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772911050064 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ARep...55..409S 55, 409

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2583 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3796S 473, 3796

    Saburova A. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2583 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3796S 473, 3796

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    S., Zasov A

    Saburova A. S., Zasov A. V., 2013, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201311922 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AN....334..785S 334, 785

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    S., Kasparova A

    Saburova A. S., Kasparova A. V., Katkov I. Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2040 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.2523S 463, 2523

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Katkov I

    Saburova A. S., Katkov I. Y., Khoperskov S. A., Zasov A. V., Uklein R. I., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1200 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470...20S 470, 20

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    S., Chilingarian I

    Saburova A. S., Chilingarian I. V., Katkov I. Y., Egorov O. V., Kasparova A. V., Khoperskov S. A., Uklein R. I., Vozyakova O. V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2519 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3534S 481, 3534

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    1955 doi

  55. [63]

    V., Mieske S., Zeilinger W

    Saulder C., van Kampen E., Chilingarian I. V., Mieske S., Zeilinger W. W., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526711 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  57. [65]

    Schmidt P., J \'o zsa G. I. G., Gentile G., Oh S.-H., Schuberth Y., Ben Bekhti N., Winkel B., Klein U., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118170 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    Schombert J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300558 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116.1650S 116, 1650

    1998 doi

  59. [67]

    K., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Mart \' nez-Valpuesta I., D \' az-Garc \' a S., Laurikainen E., Salo H., Knapen J

    Seidel M. K., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Mart \' nez-Valpuesta I., D \' az-Garc \' a S., Laurikainen E., Salo H., Knapen J. H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv969 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451..936S 451, 936

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    L., 1968, Atlas de galaxias australes

    Sersic J. L., 1968, Atlas de galaxias australes

    1968

  61. [69]

    L., Gerssen J., van der Marel R

    Shapiro K. L., Gerssen J., van der Marel R. P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379306 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.2707S 126, 2707

    2003 doi

  62. [70]

    R., 2017, in Fox A., Dav \'e R., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol

    Stewart K. R., 2017, in Fox A., Dav \'e R., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies. p. 249 ( @eprint arXiv 1612.00513 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-52512-9_11

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Tody D., 1986, in Crawford D. L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI. p. 733

    1986

  64. [72]

    Vollmer B., Nehlig F., Ibata R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322899 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    Wang J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt722 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..270W 433, 270

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    Wang J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1767 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2399W 453, 2399

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  68. [76]

    K., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1834 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696.1834W 696, 1834

    Wyder T. K., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1834 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696.1834W 696, 1834

    2009 doi

  69. [77]

    K., Serra P., Peletier R

    Y ld z M. K., Serra P., Peletier R. F., Oosterloo T. A., Duc P.-A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..329Y 464, 329

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    Zabl J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.1961Z 485, 1961

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    V., Khoperskov A

    Zasov A. V., Khoperskov A. V., Tyurina N. V., 2004, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/1.1795948 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AstL...30..593Z 30, 593

    2004 doi

  72. [80]

    V., Khoperskov A

    Zasov A. V., Khoperskov A. V., Saburova A. S., 2011, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773711050069 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AstL...37..374Z 37, 374

    2011 doi

  73. [81]

    Zasov A., Saburova A., Abramova O., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/192 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..192Z 150, 192

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.2530Z 448, 2530

    Zhao D., Arag \'o n-Salamanca A., Conselice C. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.2530Z 448, 2530

    2015 doi

  75. [83]

    Zhu Q., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly111 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480L..18Z 480, L18

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    de Blok W. J. G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423880 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  77. [85]

    den Heijer M., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201412149 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AN....336..284D 336, 284

    2015 doi

  78. [86]

    P., Franx M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172534 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...407..525V 407, 525

    van der Marel R. P., Franx M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172534 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...407..525V 407, 525

    1993 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.