Two new terms are recommended for the disciplines of faunal and ecological studies in historical perspective. They are congruent with terms in related sciences.

In a recent statistical study of settlement patterns at Tikal, Guatemala, Arnold and Ford failed to find evidence for the concentric zonation model which specifies that high-ranking persons generally lived closer to the site center than persons of lesser rank. However, their conclusions are invalidated by their exclusion from consideration of the houses occupied by the wealthy and powerful members of Tikal society. Attention is called to other deranging factors which need to be considered before a valid test of the concentric zonation model can be carried out Tikal, or at any other large and complex site.

Olsen and Olsen's concern for terminology may be excessive; research proceeds without hindrance under many labels.

Data from Coba, Quintana Roo, Mexico indicate strongly that Arnold and Ford"s (1980) settlement pattern analysis of Tikal, Guatemala is the result of an insufficient sample combined with their inability to distinguish between vaulted and unvaulted masonry structures. These deficiencies, together with a standard labor investment calculation for shrines and the use of an invalid measuring technique, have produced a distorted homogenized view of Classic Maya urban organization.

Corrections and additions to Olsen and Olsen's comment on terminology in faunal studies are provided. It is shown that a single term in faunal studies is not crucial to maintain subdisciplinary communication.

There are two basic concerns expressed in the comments by Haviland and Folan et al.: the possible exclusion from consideration of specific residential unit areas and the method for calculating labor investments. Although all the issues expressed may be legitimate, most have been explicitly addressed in our original article (Arnold and Ford 1980), and none alter our conclusions.

Odell’s use of activity areas, population parameters, seasonality, and ethnographic analogy concepts is criticized for the lack of adequate testing of his premises.

Stone engravings from Sechin, hitherto interpreted as human eyes, are reinterpreted as anuran eggs. The reasons for this interpretation and the possible symbolic meaning of such eggs are given.

George Odell's article calls attention to the need for more creative uses of the results of lithic use-wear studies. However, the structure of his argument is precarious because it is based on a hierarchy of assumptions about the stone tools themselves, as well as about the behavioral contexts of their use. A major failing of the argument is the lack of a rigorous methodology for construction and application of ethnographic analogies. The present comment argues for the use of general analogy, based on consideration of a range of pertinent ethnographic examples.