Dear Dr McIntyre
Thank you for your message, and my apologies for the delay in replying to your earlier status enquiry.

The editorial process has been extended owing to the introduction of a whole new issue (that is, the suitability of the tree ring data) in your revised comment, which has necessitated seeking a revised response from Mann et al. and advice on the exchange from a new referee, as well as reports from the original reviewers on the revised exchange. We trust that this process will not take too much longer and will let you know the outcome as soon as it becomes available.

In your message, you also draw our attention to some points concerning the Corrigendum published on 1 July by Mann et al. First, the published phrase "Mann et al., in review" does not constitute a break of Nature's embargo policy because it does not specify the journal involved; neither does it pre-empt your Communication Arising which, in the event that it is accepted for publication,will be published alongside a reply from Mann et al.

Second, a misunderstanding seems to have arisen because we have not received your request asking Nature to approach Mann et al. to remove this claim from their website, neither were we aware of it.

Third, you are welcome to highlight your disagreement with the last sentence of the Corrigendum in the final version of your Communications Arising should you consider it necessary.

Once again, we are aiming to expedite the review process but we must ask you to bear with us for a while longer yet.
Yours sincerely
Rosalind Cotter
Editor, Communications Arising