Abstract
We thank Keith Matthews and Stephen Larcombe for their thoughtful comment, which follows the good tradition of public scientific discourse (Matthews and Larcombe, 2022). While their remarks have prompted us to take another critical look at our data, we think that they neither alter our conclusions nor offer a practical alternative explanation. In essence, we see two possible interpretations of our experiments: either the trypanosome life cycle can accommodate a more flexible role for the slender stage, or the definition of the stumpy stage needs to be radically changed. While the first interpretation - which we favour - would not falsify any published work, the second one - which Matthews and Larcombe are proposing - would contradict the literature. Hence, we favour a model with an unexpected phenotypic plasticity for the slender stage and a certain degree of stochasticity in the trypanosome life cycle.