deletions | additions       diff --git a/quenching_time.tex b/quenching_time.tex  index 0ad278a..5eb568f 100644  --- a/quenching_time.tex  +++ b/quenching_time.tex 
...
Also, the overall timescale is broadly consistent with the related analysis of \citet{SlaterBell2014}, who inferred a typical quenching time since first \emph{pericenter} of $1-2\gyr$), which implies a quenching time since \emph{infall} of $\sim3\gyr$, though they did not examine mass dependence.  We also compare these timescales with previous studies of more massive satellites of other hosts.  The red squares in Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} show the timescales from \citet{Wheeler2014}, who used nearly identical methodology, combining the the galaxy catalog from \citet{Geha2012} with satellite infall times (including group preprocessing) from the Millennium II simulation \citep{BoylanKolchin2009}. simulation.  They examined satellites with $\mstar\approx10^{8.5}$ and $10^{9.5}\msun$ around hosts with $\mstar>2.5\times10^{10}\msun$, which they found likely spans $\mvir\approx10^{12.5-14}\msun$, much higher than the MW/M31.  Similarly, the green curves in Figure~\ref{fig:quench_times} show the quenching timescales for more massive satellites in groups with $\mvir=10^{12-13}\msun$ from \citet{Wetzel2013}, who also used identical methodology, combining a galaxy group catalog from SDSS \citep{Tinker2011, Wetzel2012} with satellite infall times (including group preprocessing) measured in their cosmological simulation.