deletions | additions       diff --git a/quenching_time.tex b/quenching_time.tex  index b915484..99367c4 100644  --- a/quenching_time.tex  +++ b/quenching_time.tex 
...
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 red squares in Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} show the timescales from \citet{Wheeler2014}, who used nearly identical methods based on combining the the galaxy catalog from \citet{Geha2012} with satellite infall times in the Millennium II simulation (REF), including group preprocessing.  They examined satellites with $8.25<\log(\mstar/\msun)<8.75$ $\mstar\approx10^{8.5}$  and $9.25<\log(\mstar/\msun)<9.65$ $10^{9.5}\msun$  around hosts with $\mstar>2.5\times10^{10}\msun$, which they found likely spans host halos with $\mvir\approx10^{12.5-14}\msun$. %$8.25<\log(\mstar/\msun)<8.75$ and $9.25<\log(\mstar/\msun)<9.65$  %\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.