evolution reduces the total population of this hypothetical GCS by more than an order of magnitude, it diminishes the total mass by only*]{} $\sim$25%. (The same line of argument also shows that the often appreciable uncertainties in the exact form of $d{\cal N}/dm$ at cluster masses $m<m_*$—or even blind extrapolations from observations of only brighter clusters—do not seriously bias observational estimates of $M_{\rm gcs}$ in any galaxy.)

This result is best interpreted as an estimate for the possible depletion of a GCS [*globally*]{} (i.e., spatially averaged over the whole of a parent galaxy), because the values of $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, and $m_*$ used are taken from observations of $d{\cal N}/dm$ in projection, often over fairly large areas on the sky. Thus, the normalization $K$ in equations (\[eq:24\]) and (\[eq:25\]) can be taken to include an implicit integration over galactocentric radius, and the exponents $\gamma$ and mass scale $m_*$ to be appropriate averages. The importance of these considerations is not actually clear, since radial dependences are not expected theoretically in current models for the initial GCS mass function (McLaughlin & Pudritz 1996; Elmegreen & Efremov 1997) and observational evidence for such trends at the current epoch is slight to non-existent (e.g., McLaughlin 