deletions | additions       diff --git a/quenching_time.tex b/quenching_time.tex  index 3ce2128..ef11a33 100644  --- a/quenching_time.tex  +++ b/quenching_time.tex 
...
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 $9.25 < log(\mstar/\msun) < 9.65$.  The \citet{Geha2012} sample includes all such satellites around hosts with $\mstar > 2.5 \times 10 ^ {10} \msun$, and as \citet{Wheeler2014} examined using mock catalogs in Millennium II, these satellites span a range of host halo masses $\mvir ~ 10 ^ {12.5 - 14} \msun$.  Thus, this corresponds to significantly higher host halo masses than the MW/M31, or in the sample from \citet{Wetzel2013}, which spanned $\mvir = 10 ^ {12 - 13} \msun$. 10^{12-13}\msun$.  Wheeler et al points include more massive hosts and either MW/M31 or in Wetzel et al.  If anything, we expect that to make such quenching timescales \emph{shorter} than they would be if they only were based on satellites around MW/M31-like hosts.  %\citet{Wheeler2014} defined the virial-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.