Footnotes

... small¹

Caon et al. (1990, 1994) have already quantified the photometric offsets with respect to Michard's aperture photometry. These offsets are probably dominated by an off-centering bias effect and correspond to

mag. for the smallest (r = 11.8 arcsec) aperture used by Michard and

mag. for the largest (r = 99.3 arcsec) aperture used.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

... terms²

By extrapolation terms we mean the

terms listed in Table 4 for Michard's aperture photometry and the terms listed in Table 3 for our magnitudes.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

... excluded³

As noted by Caon et al. (1990), NGC 4406 overlaps with NGC 4374 at the  mag.arcsec^-2 isophote and this may be the main cause of the 0.48 mag. discrepancy found for this galaxy.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

... magnitude⁴

In the case of Caon et al.'s integrated magnitudes, there must still be a weak dependence on the

-law assumption because the determination of the radial limit of each integration was based on an

-law extrapolation.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

...ccro⁵

Of the eleven galaxies listed in Table 5, this concordance is at the 0.07 mag. level in one case and at the 0.02 mag. level in another, but it is at the 0.01 mag. level or better in all nine other cases.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

...n<0.25⁶

n>4 in their notation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

... extrapolations⁷

Extrapolations of greater than 0.5 mag. were necessary not only for some faint dwarf ellipticals but also for two Table 2 and a further two Table 3 objects.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

---

© Copyright Astronomical Society of Australia 1997