The issue of protecting natural habitats for biodiversity has grown in stature in global policy discussions in recent years, culminating most recently in the "30x30" target. However, progress towards such ambitious goals is potentially jeopardized by those who would use legitimate academic debate as an indicator of scientific uncertainty. This manuscript brings together some of the chief protagonists on various sides of the current spatial conservation strategy debates, spelling out cogently the key points on which all agree. The manuscript does a good job of articulating points of consensus clearly and persuasively, without hiding the genuine issues that are still in contention. The text is well-written, well-structured, well-supported and persuasive. The authors make a convincing case that the areas of consensus are wide enough to inform action, and do a good job of explaining that both large tracts of wilderness (where they still remain) AND fragmented patchworks of remnant habitat (in intensively managed anthropogenic landscapes) are of substantial conservation value. I believe this paper has the potential to make an impact vastly disproportionate to its modest length. I strongly endorse its publication.

I recommended the publication of this Viewpoint in its original submission, and so I have relatively little standing to provide a critique now. The topic of spatial conservation planning remains one of high important and broad interest. The authors have also made a serious attempt to revise the piece in light of the critiques of my fellow referees; indeed, hardly a line in the manuscript remains unchanged, That said, I find the revised manuscript somewhat weaker than the original -- it feels to me that the clarity and strength of the "Viewpoint" has been lessened. In some parts, the language has also become more stilted (e.g. the use of "depauperate" as a verb in line 108), rather "muddy" (e.g. lines 76-78) or hard to decipher (lines 110-116).
The force of the argument has been attenuated with so many qualifications and caveats, and nods to related but ancillary points that it has begun to sound more like the consensus document of a committee, rather than an individual's (or team's) opinionated "Viewpoint." I still support the publication of this piece, but a bit less enthusiastically than in its original form.