The evolution of early-type galaxies in clusters from z~ 0.8 to z~ 0: the ellipticity distribution and the morphological mix

TL;DR

This study examines how the shapes and types of early-type galaxies in clusters have evolved from redshift 0.8 to 0, revealing changes in ellipticity distribution and morphological composition over cosmic time.

Contribution

It provides new insights into the evolution of galaxy shapes and morphological fractions in clusters, emphasizing the importance of selection criteria in such analyses.

Findings

Higher ellipticity in local galaxies compared to distant ones.

The fraction of ellipticals decreases from ~70% to ~40% from high to low redshift.

No evolution observed in ellipticity distribution within specific morphological types.

Abstract

We present the ellipticity distribution and its evolution for early-type galaxies in clusters from z~0.8 to z~0, based on the WIde-field Nearby Galaxy-cluster Survey (WINGS)(0.04<z<0.07), and the ESO Distant Cluster Survey (EDisCS)(0.4<z<0.8). We first investigate a mass limited sample and we find that, above a fixed mass limit, the ellipticity distribution of early-types noticeably evolves with redshift. In the local Universe there are proportionally more galaxies with higher ellipticity, hence flatter, than in distant clusters. This evolution is due partly to the change of the mass distribution and mainly to the change of the morphological mix with z (among the early types, the fraction of ellipticals goes from ~70% at high to ~40% at low-z). Analyzing separately the ellipticity distribution of the different morphological types, we find no evolution both for ellipticals and S0s. However, for ellipticals a change with redshift in the median value of the distributions is detected. This is due to a larger population of very round (e<0.05) elliptical galaxies at low-z. To compare our finding to previous studies, we also assemble a magnitude-"delimited" sample that consists of early-type galaxies on the red sequence with -19.3>M_B+1.208z>-21. Analyzing this sample, we do not recover exactly the same results of the mass-limited sample. Hence the selection criteria are crucial to characterize the galaxy properties: the choice of the magnitude-delimited sample implies the loss of many less massive galaxies and so it biases the final results. Moreover, although we are adopting the same selection criteria, our results in the magnitude-delimited sample are also not in agreement with those of Holden et al.(2009). This is due to the fact that our and their low-z samples have a different magnitude distribution because the Holden et al.(2009) sample suffers from incompleteness at faint magnitudes.