--------------- ---------------------- ------------------- ---------------------- ------------------

In @bett_2007, the parameters have much smaller uncertainty because there are much lager populations of halos in the work (17709121 raw FOF halos including 1332239 “clean” ones).

In @bullock_2001, the parameters have larger uncertainty because they use less haloes for fitting (only 500 haloes).

Note that these parameters differ from the ones originally stated in @onions_2013. The original values were derived using an incorrect fitting routine. The values stated here are the correct values fitted to the Aquarius L4 data set.

[Figure \[pic1\]]{}, [Table \[tab:codes\]]{}, [Table \[tab:res\]]{} and [Table \[tab:params\]]{} all show that the subhalo spin distribution is different from the halo spin distribution. This further confirms earlier results by @onions_2013 who found that the spin distribution of *sub[haloes]{}* in the Level 4 resolution Aquarius simulation [@springel_aquarius_2008] is significantly different to the one derived by @bett_2007 for *[haloes]{}* in the Millennium Simulation.

Our results reveal new information about the spin of sub[haloes]{}. As the box size grows from BoxA to BoxD, the discrepancy between $\lambda_0$ of [haloes]{} and sub[haloes]{} decreases gradually, i.e. the scale of the effect is mass dependent with larger sub[haloes]{} tending to have higher spin. One possibility is that in small simulations 