Reply from M. R. Baker and S. A. Edgley

摘要

The letter to the editor takes issue with the conclusions we draw in our paper (Baker & Edgley, 2006), pointing out two errors in the paper, arguing against our classification of responses, and presenting an alternative interpretation of our findings.Firstly, we accept that the letter correctly identifies two errors in the manuscript, and have placed an erratum correcting them. We regret these errors.The climbing fibre response illustrated in Fig. 2 is misplotted in the grouped data of Fig. 4. This has a minor effect on the regression line statistics.