deletions | additions       diff --git a/quenching_time.tex b/quenching_time.tex  index fc86ad3..bfffd3f 100644  --- a/quenching_time.tex  +++ b/quenching_time.tex 
...
Several works have shown that this model successfully describes the dependence of satellite quiescent fractions on host-centric distance \citep[e.g.,][]{Wetzel2013, Wetzel2014, Wheeler2014}, because of the correlation of virial-infall time with host-centric distance \citep[e.g.,][]{Wetzel2015}.  However, this correlation means that we should account for observed satellite's distances, including incompleteness for fainter satellites, in computing their infall times.  Thus, in selecting satellites in ELVIS, we only use those out to the maximum host-centric distance that they are observed from the MW or M31 at each $\mstar$ bin.  While this obviously matters for the faintest satellites, it in fact matters most at our highest masses, $\mstar=10^{8-9}$, at which allknown  satellites (M32, NGC 205, LMC/SMC) lie within $61\kpc$ of are $<61\kpc$ from  the MW or M31. Including all satellites in ELVIS within $\rvir$, regardless of distance, would bias to more recent infall times \citep{Wetzel2015} and thus would lead us to infer more rapid environmental quenching timescales.  Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} shows... shows  The timescale from \citet{Wheeler2014} is based on combining the the galaxy catalog from \citet{Geha2012} with satellite virial-infall times in the Millennium II simulation.  In particular, \citet{Wheeler2014} used a subset of satellites from \citet{Geha2012} at $8.25 < log(\mstar/\msun) < 8.75$ and $9.25 < log(\mstar/\msun) < 9.65$.