Comprehensive recent overview of galaxy Morphology & Classification

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Here is a recent, detailed, comprehensive overview about the range of galaxy morphologies found in our universe and about how galaxies are classified. The author, Ron Buta, is a very expert galaxy classifier, though it deserves comment that nearly all of his scientific output has been about galaxies with prominent disk structures (Spiral Galaxies and S0 galaxies), so a specialist in elliptical galaxies (spheroids and halos and bulges) would give a different emphasis.

http://carina.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/ext...Morphology.pdf

( If you have a look at his "The de Vaucouleurs Atlas of Galaxies, you will find little about the classification and nature of bulges and spheroids, but a lot about disk phenomena.)

This review paper is in "Planets, Stars, and Stellar Systems, Volume 6"(2011)

[glenc (Glen)]

Thanks Robert.

[Weltevreden SA (Dana)]

Thanks for the link to this very useful resource, Robert. I will ask the local photocopy shop to print and bind a full copy of it. Buta's study will join Ken Freeman and P.C. van der Kruit's 'Galaxy Disks' on the shelf of most-thumbed references. The great thing about these IIS forums is that somebody out there knows something I never heard of, which soon becomes irreplacable.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by Weltevreden SA

Thanks for the link to this very useful resource, Robert. I will ask the local photocopy shop to print and bind a full copy of it. Buta's study will join Ken Freeman and P.C. van der Kruit's 'Galaxy Disks' on the shelf of most-thumbed references. The great thing about these IIS forums is that somebody out there knows something I never heard of, which soon becomes irreplacable.

I had it in mind to send you a copy of van Den Bergh's overview of galaxy classification and morphology ( a monograph)
Believe it or not, I have actually been much too busy in the last two months to even get around to sending it.

I also have a photocopy of Kormendy's ARAA review of the most recent approach to morphological (not necessarily quantitative) galaxy classification, which more-or-less throws out the Hubble classes (except as a convenient shorthand for roughly describing what a galaxy looks like), and which instead decomposes each galaxy into several discrete structural and kinematic and age components.
(e.g.
nucleus + Nuclear ring + nuclear bar + Large Scale Bar + Inner ring + Old disk + outer ring + flocculent arms )
This is probably where standard morphological galaxy classification is headed,
in fact, this is very strongly where the De Vaucouleurs Atlas of Galaxies is headed, even though its stated purpose is to illustrate the
de Vaucouleurs Revised Hubble-Sandage Classification System
(the latest update of the Hubble classification system)

Anyhow, when I finally do get "a round tuit" and send the van den Bergh book to you, I can also send you a hard copy of Kormendy's influential review which sets forth an approach to physically-real multi-component classification that is more realistic than sticking with the discrete Hubble "archetypes" in the orthodox Hubble Sequence.

See for instance my most recent comments about IC 5332 in the Imaging Post "Two from Sculptor". This galaxy is either an Sa or an Sd, and it is probably BOTH an Sa and an Sd.
So what would be the point of assigning a single hubble type?


Believe me, I will eventually send you these goodies....it is just a question of prioritizing.

[gary]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the link.