deletions | additions       diff --git a/quenching_time.tex b/quenching_time.tex  index 0f20879..915c6c7 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 infall time correlates with host-centric distance \citep[e.g.,][]{Wetzel2015}. \textbf{XXX what about Rocha et al.? AW - they did not look at the correlation of infall time with distance, but rather as a function of orbital energy, unless there is something else that you had in mind.}  However, this correlation means that we must account for observed satellite's distances, including incompleteness at large distance 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 in each $\mstar$ bin.  While this matters for the fainter satellites, we find that it is most important at $\mstar=10^{8-9}$, $\mstar=10^{8-9}\msun$,  because all such satellites (M32, NGC 205, LMC/SMC) reside $<61\kpc$ from the MW or M31. Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} shows the inferred environmental quenching timescales, that is, the time duration from first infall to being fully quenched/gas-poor, as a function of $\mstar$.  Blue circles show the satellite galaxies in the MW and M31, and we shade the lowest $\mstar$ bin lighter to highlight caution in interpretation because of reionization, as explained above.