We again apologise to the authors for the delay is securing second reviews of their revised manuscript. The decision made here is based on the two original referees’ reports, the authors’ responses to those comments, and the one reappraisal by one of the original referees that we received.

The manuscript has clearly sparked some debate amongst the authors and referees, and the authors have assiduously strived to address the referees concerns; as well as introducing a new data set to bolster their findings, and a new round of interpretive measures. Some of the conclusions may still remain contentious, but this is clearly an important and intriguing set of observations, and lays down a challenge to the community to further pursue the research questions raised.

I am, therefore, pleased to accept this manuscript essentially as it is in its current revised form, but I suggest that the authors do implement the handful of minor corrections suggested by the second review of referee #1. I would also ask if they could check the status of the Eicher paper cited in the bibliography: this is given as “submitted”.

Thank you to the good services of the referees whose extensive comments have, I think, resulted in a substantially improved manuscript, and thanks also to the authors for implementing these improvements.

WTS