"This paper has interesting material on cometary-like and filamentary clouds and I think is worthy of being published in The Astrophysical Journal. I am returning my copy of the manuscript as I have marked the places where corrections should be made, or where sections should be made clearer. Specific comments are as follows:
On page 13, conclusion 2 states than categories Ii and III have relatively low masses in the range 3 - 40 Msun, while category I clouds are mosre massive with 50 - 900 Msun. However, G206+24 is labelled III, and G208-28 is labelled II, and in Table 3 these have masses of 56.8 and 93.4 Msun respectively. Similarly, G110-13 is labelled I and has a mass of 9.4 Msun.
Conclusion 4 on page 14 relates to the efficiency of star formation. How is this conclusion drawn from tables 1 to 3?
In the top paragraph on page 18, the author calculates masses of 25 and 3 Msun. In the next paragraph, lines 10 to 18, masses of 740 and 170 Msun are calculated. It would be nice to have some indication of which pair of masses is more likely, or else a statement saying that the uncertainty is that large.
On page 27, the galactic plane HI densiities are given as 0.1 to 0.01 atoms per cubic centimeter. This is inconsistent with the value of 0.17 given on page 17 and this value is the intercloud medium value. Cloud values will be higher still.
I am well aware that G110-13, G206+24 and G208-28 are exceptions to conclusion 2 in the original manuscript. The key word in my original summary was 'relatively' which I chose to use in order to convey to the reader the tentative nature of the conclusion. Since the referee perceived that I was making a positive, firm declaration where none was intended, I have re-written conclusion 2 so that it explicitly states that the conclusion is tentative.
The Referee is correct in noting that conclusion 4 also on page 13, does not follow directly from Tables 1 - 3. Indeed, I did use information described in Section II related to the number of identifiable, embedded stars in the Category I clouds.
Regarding the confusion over which pair of masses for G315+21 and G110-13, I favor 9.4 and 61 vs. 170 and 740. I have re-written this paragraph on page 18 of the original manuscript to clarify the issue I am addressing, and its possible resolution.
The Referee is also correct in citing the intercloud medium with n(HI) = 0.17 atoms/cc as the one in question, however, the description of the scenario in the text is ment to be qualitative. The range of densities I originally cited 0.1 - 0.01 atom/cc was intended to represent the intercloud medium density at a distance of 350 parsecs above the plane of the Milky Way.
In addition to these modifications, I have reformatted the paper with the proper margin widths at the top, bottom, left and right edges.
I returned my corrected manuscript to The Astrophysical Journal on July 16, 1987, and by July 23, 1987 I received word from the Journal that the paper had been accepted and slotted for the February 1, 1988 issue. I gathered that, from time difference between the dates, the Editor had not even forwarded the paper to the Referee for one last look, but used his power as the Editor to go ahead and publish. The adjustments that had been suggested by the Referee, and my full response to them, were for this particular paper not complicated.