Collins et al. (2011)
conducted three sets of analyses (community-wide, congeneric, and intraguild checkerboards), of which we had already published the first two. We did not do the third (intraguild analyses), because Connor & Simberloff (1979)
had criticized them previously, and we note that Collins et al. (2011)
criticized them again in their paper. We performed four additional analyses that Collins et al. (2011)
omitted: positive associations (our p. 775), archipelago differences (p. 775), incidence effects (p. 777), and genus comparisons between archipelagoes (p. 778). Thus, Collins et al. (2011)
report no new analyses: they merely repeat one-third of our analyses with one-sixth of our dataset and 1–1000th of our number of randomized matrices. Their discussion also adds nothing substantively new: it merely raises again, without the benefit of personal experience, the issues of supertramp distributions and historical biogeography that we had already discussed with knowledge of the species and archipelagoes involved.