larger) classical bulge and ellipticals, at least in the $R_{e}$–$M_{\star}$ and $\langle
\Sigma_{\star} \rangle_{e}$–$M_{\star}$ planes. What about the disky pseudobulges: do they resemble large-scale disks, classical bulges, or something else? Figure \[fig:re-vs-mstar-pseudo\] and \[fig:mue-vs-mstar-pseudo\] show where the disky pseudobulges (filled blue diamonds) fall in the same diagrams used for Figures \[fig:re-vs-mstar\] and \[fig:mue-vs-mstar\]; we have desaturated the previously plotted points to allow the pseudobulge data points to stand out more clearly. We also plot the (large-scale) disk components from the S0/spiral decompositions of @balcells07a and @laurikainen10 as filled grey diamonds.

The stellar masses of our disky pseudobulges – and the main disks from the @laurikainen10 and @balcells07a samples – plotted in Figures \[fig:re-vs-mstar-pseudo\] and \[fig:mue-vs-mstar-pseudo\] come from the same general colour-to-$M/L$ estimates [based on @bell03] as used for the classical-bulge components in the preceding section. For most of the disky pseudobulges, we use the exponential component from the inner decomposition (e.g., panel b of Figure \[fig:n3945b\]) and assume that the disky pseudobulge is an exponential disk with an ellipticity equal to that of the outer disk. (For NGC 4371, we use the plotted broken-exponential fit from panel b of Figure \[fig:n4371b\].) In the cases of NGC 1068, NGC 1543 and NGC 2859, where the inner fits specifically exclude the contribution of bright inner bars, we include an additional flux term to account for the inner bar itself [e.g., @erwin11]. The half-light radii are computed using the best-fitting exponential scale lengths from the inner decompositions (e.g., panel b of Figure \[fig:n3945b\]) – i.e., excluding any contribution from the classical bulge
larger) classical bulge and ellipticals, at least in the $ R_{e}$–$M_{\star}$ and $ \langle 
 \Sigma_{\star } \rangle_{e}$–$M_{\star}$ planes. What about the disky pseudobulges: do they resemble large - plate phonograph record, classical bulges, or something else? calculate   \[fig: re - vs - mstar - pseudo\ ] and \[fig: mue - vs - mstar - pseudo\ ] testify where the disky pseudobulges (filled blue diamond) accrue in the same diagram use for Figures   \[fig: re - vs - mstar\ ] and \[fig: mue - vs - mstar\ ]; we have desaturated the previously plot points to allow the pseudobulge datum points to stand out more clearly. We also plot the (large - scale) phonograph record components from the S0 / spiral decompositions of @balcells07a and @laurikainen10 as fill grey diamonds. 

 The stellar masses of our disky pseudobulges – and the chief disks from the @laurikainen10 and @balcells07a samples – plotted in Figures   \[fig: re - vs - mstar - pseudo\ ] and \[fig: mue - vs - mstar - pseudo\ ] come from the same cosmopolitan colour - to-$M / L$ estimates [ based on @bell03 ] as used for the classical - bulge components in the precede part. For most of the disky pseudobulges, we use the exponential component from the inner decomposition (e.g., panel   b of Figure   \[fig: n3945b\ ]) and wear that the disky pseudobulge is an exponential phonograph record with an ellipticity equal to that of the out phonograph record. (For NGC   4371, we use the plotted broken - exponential paroxysm from panel   b of Figure   \[fig: n4371b\ ] .) In the cases of NGC   1068, NGC   1543 and NGC   2859, where the inner fits specifically bar the contribution of bright inner bars, we include an additional flux terminus to account for the inner bar itself [ e.g., @erwin11 ]. The half - clean spoke are computed using the best - fitting exponential scale lengths from the inside decompositions (e.g., panel   b of Figure   \[fig: n3945b\ ]) – i.e., excluding any contribution from the classical bulge
larher) classical bulge and tllipticals, at lecwt in vhe $R_{e}$–$M_{\atar}$ and $\langle
\Sigma_{\star} \rangle_{e}$–$M_{\stac}$ plqnes. Qhat about the disky preudobulgvs: do thet rewwmble largx-acale dlfks, dpassncel bulges, or sokething elve? Figure \[fig:re-es-oscar-pseudo\] and \[fig:mue-vs-mstar-pseudo\] shjw wherr hhe disky pseuqobukdes (rploed blue diamonds) fall in the same dpagrams used for Gigures \[fig:re-vs-mstar\] and \[fih:mue-gs-mstar\]; we have dedaturated tye pwwviously plogted points to allow tge pseudobulge data points to sgand put more coeqrlj. We also plit thv (large-scale) disk com[onents from the S0/spival dxcompositions of @balcells07e and @laurikainen10 as filled gsev diamonds.

The stellar mqsses of mur auskh paendogulges – aid the main disks from the @laurikainen10 anc @fqlcells07a sampmes – pjoeted in Figures \[fig:re-vs-mstar-pseudo\] and \[fpg:mus-vs-mstar-pseudo\] come fron the same general copour-to-$M/L$ qstimates [based on @bell03] as used for the classical-tulge zomkokcnts un the preceding section. For most of the disky [aeidpbulges, we use the exponemtlak component frum the inher decomposition (f.g., panej b of Figure \[fid:n3945b\]) snd assume that the disky pweudobulge if an exponential didk with an zlliptocity equal to that of the obter djsk. (For NGC 4371, we use tgd plotted broken-dxppnantial fit from panel b of Sigure \[fig:i4371b\].) In the cares pf NGC 1068, NGC 1543 and NHC 2859, whcse the inner fits dpeciyicalny exclude the contribution of bright innxc bars, we inckuge dn additnonal nlux term to acsount for the nnner bax itseuf [e.g., @erwih11]. The helf-light radyi are computaf using the uest-fittigg ezponwntial rzale lengths ftom the iuuer decompositions (e.g., panel n of Wjgure \[fig:n3945b\]) – i.e., zrcouding any conttibjtijn fcom tra classical tulgd
larger) classical bulge and ellipticals, at least $R_{e}$–$M_{\star}$ $\langle \Sigma_{\star} planes. What about resemble disks, classical bulges, something else? Figure and \[fig:mue-vs-mstar-pseudo\] show where the disky (filled blue diamonds) fall in the same diagrams used for Figures \[fig:re-vs-mstar\] and we have desaturated the previously plotted points to allow the pseudobulge data points stand more We plot the (large-scale) disk components from the S0/spiral decompositions of @balcells07a and @laurikainen10 as filled grey The stellar masses of our disky pseudobulges – the main disks from @laurikainen10 and @balcells07a samples – in \[fig:re-vs-mstar-pseudo\] and come the general colour-to-$M/L$ estimates on @bell03] as used for the classical-bulge components in the preceding section. For most of the disky we use component from inner (e.g., b of Figure assume that the disky pseudobulge is with an ellipticity equal to that of the disk. (For 4371, we use the plotted broken-exponential from panel b of Figure \[fig:n4371b\].) In the of NGC 1068, NGC 1543 and NGC 2859, where the inner fits specifically exclude the bright inner bars, we an additional flux to for inner itself [e.g., The half-light radii are computed using the best-fitting exponential scale lengths the inner decompositions (e.g., panel b of Figure \[fig:n3945b\]) – any from the classical
larger) classical bulge and elLipticals, aT leasT in The $r_{e}$–$m_{\staR}$ and $\Langle
\Sigma_{\staR} \RangLe_{e}$–$M_{\star}$ planes. What abouT the dIsKY pseUDoBulgeS: do they REsEMBle LaRgE-scAlE DiSks, clAssIcal bulGes, or sometHinG eLse? Figure \[fig:RE-vS-mstar-pseuDo\] aNd \[fig:mue-vs-msTar-Pseudo\] ShOw wHEre thE diSky psEudobuLGes (filLed blue diAmONds) falL In the saME DiAgraMs used for Figures \[fIG:rE-Vs-mstar\] and \[fig:mUe-vs-msTaR\]; We HAVe dEsaTurated the PrEviouSLy plottED pOINTs tO Allow the pseudObulge data pOIntS to staNd Out MOre cleArly. WE aLSo pLot the (large-ScalE) disk compOnents FRom the S0/SPiral deComposItiOns Of @baLCeLlS07a aNd @LAurIKaIneN10 As fIlled greY dIaMonds.

the sTELLAr maSseS of oUr disKy pseudobulgeS – anD the MAin Disks From tHe @laUrIkainEn10 and @bAlcelLs07A samples – plotted In FiGures \[fig:rE-vs-MsTar-PsEudo\] aND \[fig:muE-vs-MstAr-pseudO\] come frOM thE sAME GeNeral colour-to-$M/L$ estImATEs [Based on @bEll03] as uSEd FoR The classIcAl-bUlge COMponeNts iN ThE precediNg sectIOn. foR most of ThE disky PsEudObuLges, wE Use tHe expoNential cOmponENt from the inner DEcomposition (e.G., PaNEL b OF FigUre \[Fig:n3945b\]) and assUme tHAt thE disKY pSeuDObulgE is an ExPOnENtial disk with an elliPtIcity eQual tO that of the outEr disk. (For Ngc 4371, WE use the pLottED bROken-exponentiaL fit fRom panel b oF figure \[fiG:n4371b\].) In The cases Of NGC 1068, NGC 1543 aND nGC 2859, where The InnEr fIts SPEcIfically excluDE The cOnTributiOn oF bright InnEr bArs, We iNcLude an addItional fLuX tErM tO acCount FOr the innEr Bar ItSelF [e.g., @erWIn11]. The hAlf-liGht rAdIi ARe cOmputed USiNG The bEsT-fIttiNg eXpOnentIal sCAle Lengths From the inNer DEcomPoSiTions (e.g., Panel b of FigurE \[fIg:n3945b\]) – i.e., exclUdIng Any conTRIbution fRom the classical bulge
larger) classical bulge an d elliptic als,atlea st  inthe$R_{e}$–$M_{\s t ar}$  and $\langle
\Sigma_{ \star }\ rang l e_ {e}$– $M_{\st a r} $ pla ne s.  Wh at ab out t hedisky p seudobulge s:do  they resemb l elarge-scal e d isks, classi cal  bulge s,  or somet hin g els e? Fig u re \[f ig:re-vs- ms t ar-pse u do\] an d \[ fig: mue-vs-mstar-pseu d o\ ]  show where th e disk yp se u d obu lge s (filledbl ue di a monds)f al l i n t h e same diagra ms used for Fig ures \ [f ig: r e-vs-m star\ ]a nd\[fig:mue-v s-ms tar\]; we  haved esatura t ed theprevio usl y p lott e dpo int st o a l lo w t h e p seudobul ge  d ata p oint s t o  sta ndoutmoreclearly. We a lso  plo t  th e (la rge-s cale )diskcompon entsfr om the S0/spira l de compositi ons  o f @ ba lcell s 07a an d @ lau rikaine n10 asf ill ed g r ey  diamonds.

The st el l a rmasses o f ourd is ky pseudobu lg es– an d the m aind is ks fromthe @l a ur ik ainen10  a nd @ba lc ell s07 a sam p les– plot ted in F igure s  \[fig:re-vs-m s tar-pseudo\]a nd \ [f i g:mu e-v s-mstar-pse udo\ ]  com e fr o mthe samegener al co l our-to-$M/L$ estima te s [bas ed on  @bell03] asused for t h e classica l-bu l ge components inthe p receding s e ction. F or mo st of th e disky p s e udobulge s,weuse  th e ex ponential com p o nent  f rom the  in ner dec omp osi tio n ( e. g., panel  b of Fi gu re  \ [f ig: n3945 b \]) andas sum etha t the diskypseud obul ge  i s  an  expone n ti a l  dis kwi th a n e ll iptic itye qua l to th at of the  ou t er d is k.  (For N GC 4371, we u se  the plott ed  br oken-e x p onential  fit from panel b of Fi g ure \[f ig: n4371 b\]. ) In thecas es ofNGC 1068,NGC 15 43 an dNGC 2 859,w h er e t he  inner fit s spe cific al ly e xcludethe contribution o f  br ight inner ba rs,  wei n cl ude an add it i ona l flux term to ac count forth e  i nner bar i t sel f[e.g.,@erwin1 1]. T h e half- light rad ii are co mp uted u sin g the best -fitting  exponent i al sc a le  leng ths  fromth e i nnerdecomp o sit ions(e.g.,  p anel b  of F ig ure \[fi g:n3945b\]) – i.e., exc luding  anycon tribution  fr o m t he classi calbulge
larger) classical_bulge and_ellipticals, at least in_the $R_{e}$–$M_{\star}$_and_$\langle
\Sigma_{\star} \rangle_{e}$–$M_{\star}$_planes._What about the_disky pseudobulges: do_they resemble large-scale disks,_classical bulges, or_something_else? Figure \[fig:re-vs-mstar-pseudo\] and \[fig:mue-vs-mstar-pseudo\] show where the disky pseudobulges (filled blue diamonds) fall in_the_same diagrams_used_for_Figures \[fig:re-vs-mstar\] and \[fig:mue-vs-mstar\]; we have_desaturated the previously plotted points_to allow_the pseudobulge data points to stand out more_clearly._We also plot_the (large-scale) disk components from the S0/spiral decompositions of_@balcells07a and @laurikainen10 as filled grey_diamonds.

The stellar masses_of_our_disky pseudobulges – and_the main disks from the @laurikainen10_and @balcells07a samples – plotted in_Figures \[fig:re-vs-mstar-pseudo\] and \[fig:mue-vs-mstar-pseudo\] come from the same_general colour-to-$M/L$ estimates [based on @bell03]_as used for the classical-bulge_components in_the preceding section. For most_of the disky_pseudobulges, we_use the exponential_component from the inner decomposition (e.g.,_panel b of Figure \[fig:n3945b\])_and assume that the disky pseudobulge_is_an exponential disk_with_an_ellipticity equal_to that of_the_outer disk._(For_NGC 4371, we use the plotted broken-exponential_fit_from panel b of Figure \[fig:n4371b\].) In the cases_of NGC 1068, NGC 1543 and_NGC 2859,_where the inner fits_specifically exclude the contribution of_bright inner bars, we include an_additional flux_term to_account for the inner bar itself [e.g., @erwin11]. The half-light radii_are computed using the best-fitting exponential_scale lengths from the_inner decompositions_(e.g.,_panel b of Figure \[fig:n3945b\])_–_i.e., excluding_any contribution from the classical bulge