Unfortunately, this ms fundamentally misunderstands the hotspots concept. That concept refers to places which not only hold high endemism, but ALSO have suffered high habitat loss... i.e., places which are both irreplaceable and vulnerable.

It is therefore valid to try to assess which of the previously-identified 36 hotspots may not be adequately vulnerable to meet hotspot criteria, but it is not appropriate to add additional areas which are insufficiently vulnerable to meet hotspot criteria of >70% habitat loss. Instead, such areas (with high irreplaceability but LOW vulnerability) were identified in a complementary strategy - High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas. Again, it would be valid to reassess those, but it is not appropriate to rename them 'hotspots' unless they have lost >70% of habitat.

Of course, it would also be valid to assess whether 70% is a suitable threshold, but fundamentally hotspots have always been defined as areas with the majority of habitat lost, not with the majority of habitat remaining.