One of the concerns we had was that there is no measure of the impact of the prior.
As discussed a couple of weeks ago, I ran the same file as the authors, changing only the prior on the root age, with a couple of stupid priors (e.g. allowing the root age to go to 25kY BP). The runs are not long enough yet, but the early picture is that this does not seem to have a big impact on the posterior.
The authors should have performed such checks. They didn't (or didn't report them), but this particular check breaks their way. I therefore think that we don't need to mention this aspect in the rebuttal (but I would have asked for it if I had been a reviewer), unless something comes out of @chrzyki 's analyses without any data.
One of the concerns we had was that there is no measure of the impact of the prior. As discussed a couple of weeks ago, I ran the same file as the authors, changing only the prior on the root age, with a couple of stupid priors (e.g. allowing the root age to go to 25kY BP). The runs are not long enough yet, but the early picture is that this does not seem to have a big impact on the posterior. The authors should have performed such checks. They didn't (or didn't report them), but this particular check breaks their way. I therefore think that we don't need to mention this aspect in the rebuttal (but I would have asked for it if I had been a reviewer), unless something comes out of @chrzyki 's analyses without any data.