deletions | additions       diff --git a/discussion.tex b/discussion.tex  index 36d1e76..771640d 100644  --- a/discussion.tex  +++ b/discussion.tex 
...
The papers by \citet{Richter2005}, \citet{Richter2006}, \citet{Wenzel_2007}, and \citet{Gaudzinski2011} are among the most relevant ones discussing the distribution and survival strategies of Neanderthals during their last years. These papers provide a valuable review on Eemian Neanderthal sites (many of them used to calibrate our model), and offer a valuable discussion on whether or not the dense forests present in Central Europe during MIS 5e were suitable for Neanderthals due to the lack of large herds of mammals (especially \citet{Gaudzinski2011}). Since our model is focused on abiotic drivers, we cannot contribute to the discussion of whether or not dense forests were a harsh environment for Neanderthals. But according to our results, the central and north European plains occupied by dense forests during the Eemian were already cold and flat, resulting in low habitat suitability values. This does not mean that we consider abiotic factors to be more relevant in shaping Neanderthals distribution; we are simply adding new information that may help to formulate new questions about this topic. To disentangle the relative effect of climate, topography, and the presence of dense forests over Neanderthals northern edge would require a reliable vegetation simulation (as in \citet{Allen20102604} or \citet{Gaillard2010483}), that is not currently available.  Two of the papers mentioned above, (\citet{Wenzel_2007} and \citet{Richter2006}) discuss the use of beaches to obtain seafood. Many new Eemian sites are located by the sea, sea (many is probably too strong a word),  and our model shows that habitat suitability was very high across most parts of the Mediterranean, Atlantic, Adriatic, Aegean, and Black Sea coasts. Actually, the distribution of habitat suitability values interpreted along the newly available sites challenges the idea of Neanderthals as a central-European species. Our model shows that the presence records in northern Germany could have been the tail of Neanderthals distribution, while abiotic conditions were close to optimum along the coastlines. Our findings support the idea of Eemian Neanderthals being a species mainly thriving in warm coastlines, able to exploit the resources provided by the sea \cite{Stringer200814319, Colonese201186} and probably small game living near coastal habitats \cite{Blasco2014}. \paragraph{Hypothesis on the drivers of Neanderthals distribution} 
...
\paragraph{Implications for Neanderthal dispersal}  The habitat suitability model presented in this study provides guidelines to interpret the potential effect of climatic and topographic barriers over Neanderthals dispersal and gene flow. dispersal.  Mountain ranges like the Alps and Pyrenees were probably strong barriers during the Eemian (and during the early Weischselian, according to \citet{Andel}) that could have offered an opportunity to be crossed during the summer \cite{Richter2006}, but a rough topography couldhave  still have  been an issue for the mobility requirements of Neanderthals. Extensive plains dominated by a continental climate (Pannonian plain, North European plains) plains = but we have plenty of sites on the NEP?)  could have also prevented Neanderthals migration, especially during summers in the south and winters in the north. Finally, migrationand gene flow  through suitable coastal areas could have been relatively difficult due to the complex shape of the coast line and massive water bodies (Aegean Sea, Black Sea). (I am not sure I understand this last argument? what do you mean with "complex shape of the coast"?)  Our model shows at least six suitable geographical regions, more or less isolated from each other: the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts of the Iberian Peninsula; France and Western Germany, limited by the Alps, the north European plains and the sea; British Islands, but Neanderthals presence during the Eemian has not been confirmed there \cite{Penkman_2011}; Italian peninsula, limited by the Po Valley and the Alps; Peloponese and Aegean Islands, limited by the sea (but see \citet{Richter2005}, \citet{Broodbank_2006} and \citet{Ferentinos_2012}, for a discussion about the possibility of seafaring by Neanderthals), but without any reliable Neanderthal material attributed to MIS 5e; and the coasts of Anatolia, Lebanon, and Israel.  In the long term, the compartmentalization of Neanderthal populations could have led to genetic differentiation, as shown in \citet{Fabre_2009} where the authors studied genetic variation within twelve samples of mitochondrial DNA obtained from Neanderthal samples dated between 100 and 29 ka BP (but according to \cite{Higham_2014} the latter date may be more probably probable  around 40 ka BP). They defined two genetic demes within our study area (see Fig. 2 in \citet{Fabre_2009}: a northern region that comprises the North of the Iberian Peninsula, Eastern France, Germany and the rest of central Europe; a southern region comprising the East of the Iberian Peninsula, South of France, Italian Peninsula, and the Balkans. These demes do not completely fit with our habitat suitability model: there seems to be connectivity between Eastern and Western Iberian Peninsula due to a corridor of suitable habitat at the south of Pyrenees, and between Western and Eastern France, that show a large extension of well connected suitable habitat. But both models agree in the important effect of the Alps as the main geographic barrier shaping the separation between ecologically suitable areas and genetic demes. A detailed analysis of habitat suitability maps along with cultural and genetic evidences can help to understand the causes for gradients of cultural and genetic change across large territories. \paragraph{Limitations} 
...