At variance with SP, we have not listed in Table 1 a maximum velocity
of rotation . Knowledge of the maximum rotation velocity of the
central bulge would be valuable as a constraint on its mass and dynamical
status, but the influence of the disk is (in most cases) important, and even
when a conspicuous inner "plateau'' is visible in the rotation curve, it
cannot be connected to the bulge
in a dependable way. As for
the disk maximum rotation, few of our spectra are deep enough to determine it
(a small but significant difference with the gas rotation should be present).
Although applications to both bulges and disks can be considered, the
present data are clearly biased toward the formers. It is thus
relevant to ask the following question: How is related to the
kinematics of the bulge population? The answer is not straightforward, and
several aspects of the problem have to be detailed, as below.
To begin with, a typical bulge is a fast rotator, compared to bright
ellipticals; for our observations at intermediate or high inclination, at the
very center, resolution effects (integration due to pixel and slit dimensions,
atmospheric smearing) tend to widen the apparent line-of-sight velocity
distribution (the LOSVD), thus increasing . The light from the
colder disk, when superimposed on the bulge in
sufficient quantity, has the opposite effect on
. The resulting
balance can be accurately determined if: a) a bulge+disk photometric
decomposition is performed, b) a dynamical model is applied and integrated
along the line of sight, and c) comparison to the observations is made with
proper attention to the fact that the LOSVD of the model is likely
non-Gaussian, since the two components, locally, show different rotational
velocities as well as velocity dispersions.
This has recently been applied, for example, to edge-on S0 galaxies
(Loyer et al. 1998), and this elaborate modeling is beyond the scope of the
present paper. Instead, we have limited ourselves to a simpler estimate of the
resolution and disk-contamination effects on the central bulge kinematics
(see Appendix); as a result, we list in Col. (12) of Table 1 a
factor by which the bulge velocity dispersion, averaged
within a tenth of its effective radius (
), has been modified
to give the observed
. We note that
is close to
unity, and that the correction is, for most bulges, marginal compared to the
error bars of the present data.
We now stress two more points: first, although
is intended to represent a physical kinematical
parameter, it scales only a part of the total kinetic energy; from
Binney (1978), and Prugniel & Simien (1994), we can estimate to
20% the ratio of the rotational
to the random kinetic energy for bulges of spiral galaxies. Second,
detailed individual models can be significantly complicated by a barred
or triaxial geometry; for most of these galaxies, isophote parameters can
be found in HS96 for a previous check.
We will present in the near future similar data for a complementary sample of more recent observations, together with comparisons to other sources (Héraudeau & Simien, in preparation); we also plan to study relevant correlations and detailed kinematical modeling.
AcknowledgementsWe are endebted to the telescope operators at the Observatoire de Haute-Provence for their help in collecting the data. We thank an anonymous referee for valuable comments on previous versions of the manuscript. We have made use of the Lyon-Meudon Extragalactic Database operated by the LEDA team.
Copyright The European Southern Observatory (ESO)