SEB Paper: referees point:

Peterson has asked "There is, however, one important point where I remain confused (suggesting that other readers might be similarly confused) and perhaps the authors can clear this up. It is not perfectly clear to me where the breakdown in the Shen et al masses actually occurs: It is not clear whether the major contributing factor is (1) use of FWHM rather than line dispersion, (2) the assumption that the line profiles are reasonably characterized by a Gaussian fit, or (3) the combination of the two."

okay, I guess I know how to investigate this. We have Shen et al. 2004 using one Gaussian fit and Shen et al. 2010 using two or more Gaussian fit. Comparing these two will clear situation.

1) if they are mostly the same then using FWHM will be the main source of difference

2) if they are not the same and indeed the new estimates are more close to what line dispersion gives then the main source is the number of Gaussian approximation.

Now I am going to investigate this.