Ellis’ first major criticism, that local variations on the regional precipitation patterns were ignored, is considered irrelevant, because of the local, random, and short-term nature of these variations and the essential homogeneity of the climate of the Plateau area. Ellis’ second criticism, that the regional differences in climate between the Plateau area and the Rio Grande region were not taken into account, is considered to have more relevance. These differences could conceivably account for a movement between a desiccated Mesa Verde and a little-affected Rio Grande, but precipitation at Mesa Verde would have to be considerably more than halved for this regional differential to be of importance. Regional climatic differences cannot explain population shifts within the relatively homogeneous Plateau region. Hack's theory of arroyo-cutting accompanying droughts as the direct cause of migrations is inadequate because a number of areas were manifestly unaffected by arroyo-cutting, and there is evidence to suggest that arroyo-cutting is not genetically associated with drought periods as minor as that of A.D. 1276–1299. Certain misquotations in Ellis' note are also corrected, as is a misrepresentation in Jett's article.