of the same sample derived in vDvdM06. Section \[s:slopeevol\] discusses how the $M/L$ evolution depends on galaxy dispersion (or similarly mass), both in the present study and in the FP analysis. The uncertainties in both methods are discussed, as well as the implications for the accuracies of the inferred $M/L$ evolution. Section \[s:conc\] presents a summary and discussion of the results.

The dynamically inferred $M/L$ of a galaxy is inversely proportional to the assumed distance. Throughout this paper (as in Paper I) we assume a cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} =
0.73$ (the values obtained by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe; Spergel [[et al. ]{}]{}2003) and $H_0 = 71 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}{\>{\rm Mpc}}^{-1}$ (the value obtained by the HST Cepheid Key Project; Section 7 of Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}2001). The uncertainties in $\Omega_{\rm m}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ can be estimated to be $\sim 0.02$ (Spergel [[et al. ]{}]{}2003). At $z \approx
0.5$ this introduces an uncertainty of only $\Delta_{\rm I} = \pm
0.003$ in $\log(M/L)$. (Here and henceforth we denote sources of systematic uncertainty in $\log(M/L)$ with a roman numeral subscript. A summary listing of all sources of systematic uncertainty encountered in this paper is presented in Table \[t:syserrors\].) The 