deletions | additions       diff --git a/quenching_time.tex b/quenching_time.tex  index ef11a33..6614c38 100644  --- a/quenching_time.tex  +++ b/quenching_time.tex 
...
Both panels suggests shorter quenching timescales for less massive satellite dwarfs: $\sim5\gyr$ at $\mstar=10^{8-9}\msun$, $2-3\gyr$ at $\mstar=10^{7-8}\msun$, and $<1.5\gyr$ at $\mstar<10^7\msun$, depending on the importance of group preprocessing.  Moreover, the median timescale for two of the lowest $\mstar$ bins is $0\gyr$ because of the 100\% quiescent fractions there, which implies that quenching must be extremely rapid to eliminate all star-forming satellites (modulo uncertainty from the limited number of observed satellites).  We can compare these quenching timescales, statistically  based on statistical satellite infall times via cosmological simulations, quenching timescales  tothe  infall times directly measured for individual  satellites in of  the MW. In particular, the The  3-D orbital velocity measured for the LMC/SMC strongly suggest that they are experiencing their first infall andfirst  passed within $\rvir$ of the MW $\approx2\gyr$ ago \citep{Kallivayalil2013}. Given that both are still remain  star-forming, this places a firm lower limit to their quenching timescale, as the gray triangle in Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} shows. This limit isfully  consistent with the timescales at $\mstar=10^{8-9}\msun$ from our statistical approach. Similarly, the 3-D orbital velocity measured for Leo I ($\mstar=5.5\times10^6\msun$) indicates that it fell into the MW halo $\approx2.3\gyr$ ago, and its measured SFH indicates that it quenched $\approx1\gyr$ ago (coincident with its pericentric passage at $\approx90\kpc$), implying an environmental quenching timescale of $\approx1.3\gyr$ \citep{Sohn2013}, again fully consistent with Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times}.  Also interesting is to compare these environmental quenching timescales for dwarf galaxies at $\mstar\lesssim10^9\msun$ within the MW/M31 halos with previous studies of more massive satellites within other host halos.  The timescale red squares in Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} show the timescales  from \citet{Wheeler2014} is \citet{Wheeler2014}, who used nearly identical methods  based on combining the the galaxy catalog from \citet{Geha2012} with satellite virial-infall infall  times in the Millennium II simulation.  In particular, \citet{Wheeler2014} used a subset of simulation (REF), including group preprocessing.  They examined  satellites from \citet{Geha2012} at $8.25 < log(\mstar/\msun) < 8.75$ with $8.25<\log(\mstar/\msun)<8.75$  and $9.25 < log(\mstar/\msun) < 9.65$.  The \citet{Geha2012} sample includes all such satellites $9.25<\log(\mstar/\msun)<9.65$  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}, $\mstar>2.5\times10^{10}\msun$,  whichspanned $\mvir = 10^{12-13}\msun$.  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. found likely spans host halos with $\mvir\approx10^{12.5-14}\msun$.  %\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.  This is significantly higher than the MW/M31, and if anything, we expect that their quenching timescales are \emph{shorter} than for similar mass satellites of MW/M31-like hosts.  Similarly, the green curves in Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} show the timescales for more massive satellites from \citet{Wetzel2013}, who also used identical methodology, combining galaxy groups from SDSS \citep{Tinker2011, Wetzel2012} with satellite infall times (including group preprocessing) from mock group catalogs in their cosmological simulation.  We show their results for groups with $\mvir=10^{12-13}\msun$, the most similar to MW/M31 masses.