$ 2.38\pm0.14  $    $ 0.0293\pm0.0008  $    $ 2.12\pm0.23$
                                                                                              
                                $\lambda_0'$            $\sigma$            $\lambda_0'$           $\sigma$
  BoxA($N_p\ge300$)         $ 0.0310\pm0.00024 $    $ 0.629\pm0.007 $   $ 0.0167\pm0.00019 $   $ 0.664\pm0.009$
  BoxA($N_p\ge2400$)        $ 0.0324\pm0.00060 $    $ 0.626\pm0.017 $   $ 0.0183\pm0.0008 $    $ 0.738\pm0.035$
  BoxA\_S2($N_p\ge2400$)    $ 0.0327\pm0.00056 $    $ 0.622\pm0.016 $   $ 0.0198\pm0.0009 $    $ 0.662\pm0.040$
  BoxLo($N_p\ge300$)        $ 0.0337\pm0.00049 $    $ 0.616\pm0.012 $   $ 0.0207\pm0.0007 $    $ 0.582\pm0.028$
  ------------------------ ----------------------- ------------------- ---------------------- ------------------

In [Table \[tab:res\]]{} we test the influence of mass resolution. In the brackets after simulation name, we note the particle number threshold chosen. This is set in order to match (sub)halo masses between BoxA and BoxLo, the lower resolution version of this simulation. This ensures that the halo and subhalo catalogues for BoxLo($N_p\ge300$), BoxA($N_p\ge2400$) and BoxA\_S2($N_p\ge2400$) have the same mass range. The gravitational softening lengths for both BoxLo and BoxA were set to $4\%$ of mean particle separation. BoxLo and BoxA\_S2 have the same absolute softening length ($1.25h^{-1}{\rm kpc}$). The results show that mass resolution has almost no effect on spin distribution. The first three rows of each sub-table also give a hint about the influence of softening: as suggested above softening mainly affects the spin of small sub[haloes]{}. This is not surprising for the 