Indicate in the comments box below whether you are happy with the changes made or if the manuscript is unacceptable.

Comments on revised manuscript

I thank the authors for their efforts to address the concerns raised. I broadly agree with the answers, but three further details need clarification: 1. Calculating the raw reads and the resulting genome size yields a coverage of about 62x. The authors mapped the raw reads back to the resulting reference genome sequence, which gave 47x coverage. However, both Genomescope and Merqury K-mer analysis showed 22x coverage. What is the reason for this discrepancy? 2. The K-mer analysis does indeed, and a bit strangely, show what appears to be a haploid genome. However, the 0.302% heterozygosity measured by GenomeScope is not remarkably low. To have an accurate picture of this, it would be important to count the number of heterozygous sites based on the raw reads mapped back at 47x coverage. 3. Although we do not know the exact chromosome number, fitting the reference to the red deer reference could be interesting. It would show how many scaffolds fit more than one red deer chromosome. Of course, this could be either due to chromosome rearrangement or because the contigs' scaffolding or assembly was incorrect.