the present argument. Empirically, the mass scale $m_*$ is [*always*]{} about $1.6\times10^5\,M_\odot$; at this mass, the logarithmic slope of $d{\cal N}/
dm$ changes rather abruptly from $\gamma_2>1$ to $\gamma_1<1$, with precise values that can vary slightly from galaxy to galaxy. There are strong arguments to support the notion that observed GCS mass functions at $m>m_*$ are indeed accurate reflections of the formation distributions (namely, the high-mass sides of $d {\cal N}/dm$ in observed GCSs show no significant variation with galactocentric radius inside a single system, and are quite similar—though not identical—from galaxy to galaxy; see Harris & Pudritz 1994; McLaughlin & Pudritz 1996; Elmegreen & Efremov 1997). In addition, some theoretical studies (e.g., Surdin 1979; Okazaki & Tosa 1995; Vesperini 1997; Elmegreen & Efremov 1997) have suggested that the shallower slopes at lower masses might be caused entirely by dynamical evolution from an initial $d{\cal N}/dm\propto
m^{-\gamma_2}$, roughly as described above. In reality, this view could very well be too extreme: empirically, the system of young super star clusters in the Antennae, which is not likely to have been severely affected by dynamical destruction, may have a mass function of the form (\[eq:25\]) rather than (\[eq:24\]) (Fritze-von Alvensleben 1999); and 