Hi Anvar,
Many thanks for your detailed and constructive suggestions so far.
We have now worked through all of them.

In the abstract, we have shortened the first bullet point and moved the
item about helicity flux just behind the first one.

Regarding your suggestion to remove the Han17 references, is this
because you don't find them useful? (He always emails me, and then I
felt I could quote at least one.

Regarding your suggestion to omit the first column of Fig.1, your argument
"never observed" would not really be an argument in favor of not even
trying or explaining how it would look like, we thought.

Regarding your suggestion to omit "nonaxisymmetric", I guess your
motivation was to develop a stronger emphasis on your work of the
1980s. In connection with this review, I did read your earlier works
(and had them on my iPad since then), but don't remember why I ended up
not quoting them. I have now corrected this and we quote Baryshnikova+87
and Krasheninnikova+89. Regarding Ruzmaikin+85 (not 86, right?), Eqs. (1)
and (2) apply only to the axisymmetric case, right? Baryshnikova+87
is ok in that respect, but between Eqs. (2) and (4), the alpha effect
is dropped. This seems then ok in Krasheninnikova+89, but m=1 is
still regarded as viable. Stix71 and Roberts+Stix72 had the first
nonaxisymmetric models, where a preference for m=1 was seen for weak
shear, but in our 1990 work, we found that this narrow window disappeared
even for weak shear. This could be because of the narrowness of the disc.
According to Fig. 4 of Krasheninnikova+90, m=1 is possible for large
nonaxisymmetric perturbations of the disc, but this is anther story.

In your book, in 13.6.2, you quote Baryshnikova+87 in connection with M81,
but isn't there the alpha effect neglected in the Bphi equation?

On page 7, you noted that Rm is not decisive for mean-field dynamos.
I think I know what you mean, but this is only true if you neglect eta
compared with etat. I don't think that this statement was misleading
or wrong.

Regarding the eigenfunction being non-differentiable, I was thinking
of the ABC flow dynamo, where the field geometry becomes constantly of
smaller scale, but the field is still differentiable, I think. I see
that the Zeldovich+83 book says that this flows (with eta=0) leads to
exponential growth, which I agree with, but it is not obvious that this
should be called a dynamo. (You wrote at the end of Sec.2.2 about linear
growth, but this is not true for the ABC flow, I think.) Where in the
Zeldovich+83 book did they talk about non-differentiable?

You commented regarding "higher order contributions to <uxb>; I meant
that etat*J is a higher order contribution relative to alpha*B. Do you
mean one should write higher derivative contributions?

Regarding the Herzenberg dynamo consisting of stars, yes, there is
a paper on this idea, but I would still regard this as small-scale,
because the scale of the field is that of the eddies (or stars).

Regarding "cease to exist for large values of Rm", I have now changed it
to "cease to exist in the limit of large Rm" instead of "be efficient".
In the *limit*, they really don't exist.

Regarding 2-D flows, to me, dimensionality always has to do with d/dx_i,
and not with u_i. Is there an alternative *simple* expression? Given that
the details are given mathematically, there should be no confusion.

The Zeldovich 57 ref is not easily accessible, I guess, we we not refer
to it in the side margin on page 11.

This mean field could be understood as a low Fourier mode filtering.
However, then the average of the product of a mean and a fluctuation 
vanishes only approximately; see \cite{ZBC18} for the related discussion
on what is known as Reynolds rules for averaging.