of stellar orbits from models that only include a SMBH and stars ([*no*]{} DM halo). Ignoring the contribution of DM halos in the models changes the derived orbital structure significantly. In fact, in our core-galaxy models without DM (Figure \[fig:nodm\](a)), the homology (as seen in Figure \[fig:dm\](a)) disappears. In the outer parts, the omission of DM reduces the amount of stars on radial orbits, which is a reflection of the well-known mass-anisotropy degeneracy, i.e., that missing mass can be partly compensated for by a more tangential orbit distribution [e.g. @Binney82; @Gerhard93].

@Schulze11 did a similar comparison between models that included a SMBH, stars, and DM and models with only a SMBH and stars. Their results change only a little when DM is included. We attribute the difference to our models, which change significantly when the effect of a DM halo is included, to the fact that @Schulze11 do not allow for as much freedom in the distribution of DM as we do in our models (cf. @Rusli13a). In addition, the models of @Schulze11 rely on [*long-slit*]{} [[*HST*]{}]{} data, which, by their one-dimensional (1D) nature, do not fully cover the central galaxy regions and leave most of the stellar orbits unconstrained 