deletions | additions       diff --git a/quenching_time.tex b/quenching_time.tex  index 12155da..9ad5a9b 100644  --- a/quenching_time.tex  +++ b/quenching_time.tex 
...
\subsection{Inferred Environmental Quenching Timescales} Timescales for Satellites}  Our goal is to translate the quiescent fractions in Figure~\ref{fig:quiescent_fraction} into the typical timescales that satellites are quenched after falling into a more massive host halo.  We only follow the methodology of \citet{Wetzel2013}.  First, we must know the fraction that were quenched prior to infall.  Details...  We ignore KKR 25...  We do not  examine ultra-faint masses...  The effects of reionization at $\mstar=10^{4-5}\msun$ remains unclear, so we include it, in part motivated by the 100\% quiescent fraction at that mass.  Within each 1-dex bin of $\mstar$, we then use the ELVIS simulations to compute the distribution of virial-infall times for satellites.  Assuming that quenching likelihood correlates with time since infall, we rank order  satellites by infall time and designate those that fell  in earliest as having been quenching, adjusting the infall time threshold for quenching until we match  the simulation observed quiescent fraction.  This modeling has been shown to describe well the dependence of satellite quiescent fractions on distance to host \citep{Wetzel2013, Wetzel2014, Wheeler2014}.  While we do not account for observational completeness as a function of $\mstar$ in computing quiescent fractions, in selecting satellites in ELVIS, we only use those  out to the maximum distance that they are observed from the MW or M31 in \emph{each} $\mstar$ bin. (We do take into account the maximum observed distance This matters most for our highest mass bin  of dwarfs $\mstar=10^{8-9}$,  at each $\mstar$ bin when which all 3 known satellites are within $N\kpc$ of the MW/M31, because those satellites closest to their host fell in earlier \citep{Wetzel2015}.  Figure~\ref{quench_time} 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 $9.25 < log(\mstar/\msun) < 9.65$.  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 $\mvir = 10 ^ {12 - 13} \msun$.  \citet{Wheeler2014} %\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.