deletions | additions       diff --git a/summary_discussion.tex b/summary_discussion.tex  index e2347b7..11b406a 100644  --- a/summary_discussion.tex  +++ b/summary_discussion.tex 
...
At $\mstar\gtrsim10^9\msun$, the long timescales suggests that satellite quenching is caused by gas depletion in the absence of cosmic accretion, via the stripping of extended gas around the satellite, after infall (``strangulation'').  This scenario also can explain the decline of the quenching timescale with increasing $\mstar$, because higher-$\mstar$ (non-satellite) galaxies generally have lower $\mgas/\mstar$ \citep[in either cold atomic or molecular gas, e.g.,][Bradford et al., submitted]{Schiminovich2010, Huang2012, Boselli2014} and thus shorter gas depletion timescales in the absence of accretion.  Conversely, (non-satellite) galaxies at $\mstar\sim10^9\msun$ have $\mgas \approx \mstar$, $\mgas\approx\mstar$,  with gas depletion timescales comparable to a Hubble time. Thus, satellite quenching timescales at $\mstar\gtrsim10^9\msun$ do not necessarily \emph{require} strong environmental processes beyond truncated gas accretion \citep[see also discussions in][]{Wetzel2013, Wheeler2014, McGee2014}.  However, strangulation cannot explain the rollover in satellite quenching times at $\mstar\lesssim10^9\msun$, because the gas-rich dwarf galaxies of the LG also have $\mgas\gtrsim\mstar$ \citep{GrcevichPutman2009} and thus contain enough cold gas to fuel star formation for a Hubble time even absent accretion.