deletions | additions       diff --git a/quenching_time.tex b/quenching_time.tex  index b025613..840e062 100644  --- a/quenching_time.tex  +++ b/quenching_time.tex 
...
Both panels show shorter median quenching timescales for less massive satellites: $\sim5\gyr$ at $\mstar=10^{8-9}\msun$, $2-3\gyr$ at $\mstar=10^{7-8}\msun$, and less than $1.5\gyr$ at $\mstar<10^7\msun$, depending on the inclusion of group preprocessing.  Moreover, the median timescale for two of the lowest $\mstar$ bins is $0\gyr$ because 100\% of those satellites are quiescent, which implies that quenching must be extremely rapid after infall.  We can next  compare these statistically based quenching timescales to infall times infall/quenching timescales  directly measured for satellites of the MW. The 3-D orbital velocity measured for the LMC/SMC strongly suggests that they are experiencing on  their first infall and passed inside $\rvir$ of the MW $\approx2\gyr$ ago \citep{Kallivayalil2013}. Given that both remain star-forming, this places afirm  lower limit to their quenching timescale (gray triangle), which is consistent with our statistical timescales at $\mstar=10^{8-9}\msun$. similar mass.  Similarly, measurements of  the 3-D orbital velocity measured and star-formation history  for Leo I ($\mstar=5.5\times10^6\msun$) indicates indicate  that it fell into the MW halo $\approx2.3\gyr$ ago, ago  andits measured star-formation history indicates that it  quenched $\approx1\gyr$ ago, ago (near its $\approx90\kpc$ pericentric passage),  implying a quenching timescale of $\approx1.3\gyr$ \citep{Sohn2013}, \citep[][gray pentagon]{Sohn2013},  again consistent with our results.%(coincident with its pericentric passage at $\approx90\kpc$)  We also compare these timescales for satellites with $\mstar\lesssim10^9\msun$ within the MW/M31 halos with previous studies of more massive satellites within other host halos.  The red squares in Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} show the timescales from \citet{Wheeler2014}, who used nearly identical methodology, combining the the galaxy catalog from \citet{Geha2012} with satellite infall times (including group preprocessing) from simulation.  % the Millennium II simulation  \citep{BoylanKolchin2009} They examined satellites with $\mstar\approx10^{8.5}$ and $10^{9.5}\msun$ around hosts with $\mstar>2.5\times10^{10}\msun$, which they found likely spans $\mvir\approx10^{12.5-14}\msun$.  %$8.25<\log(\mstar/\msun)<8.75$ and $9.25<\log(\mstar/\msun)<9.65$  %\citet{Wheeler2014} defined the infall time of a satellite as the first time that it became a satellite, so their definition include group preprocessing, with the caveat that if a satellite orbits beyond its host, as defined by the FoF group, becoming a backsplash/ejected satellite, and then falls back into a host again, they include only the latter infall time.  These are much higher masses than the MW/M31, which could mean that the quenching timescales in \citet{Wheeler2014} are \emph{shorter} than for similar mass satellites of MW/M31-like hosts.  Similarly, the green curves in Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} show the quenching timescales for more massive satellites from \citet{Wetzel2013}, who also used identical methodology, combining galaxy groups from SDSS \citep{Tinker2011, Wetzel2012} with satellite infall times (including group preprocessing) measured in mock group catalogs in their cosmological simulation.  We show their result for groups with $\mvir=10^{12-13}\msun$, which are most similar to MW/M31 masses.  Summarize overlapping mass ranges and overall trends... Combination our results with these works suggests a complex dependence of environmental quenching timescales on satellite $\mstar$.  Specifically, our results alone suggest that the quenching timescale in the MW/M31 halos increases with satellite mass, from $\lesssim1\gyr$ at $\mstar<10^7\msun$ to $\sim5\gyr$ at $\mstar\approx10^{8.5}\msun$.  However, the results of \citet{Wheeler2014} imply a doubling of the timescale to $\approx9.5\gyr$ at just higher $\mstar$, though the find no dependence in their sample from $\mstar\approx10^{8.5}$ to $10^{9.5}\msun$.  This suggests some tension with the satellite of the MW/M31.  Finally, the results of \citet{Wetzel2013}...