The statistical significance of the pattern, and it is a pattern, is still elusive. However, it is now apparent, due to a detailed explanation, that the data demonstrate that distinct pattern. We have an explantion for why the changes would be seen at certain spots, but the explanation for those changes not being seen at other sites with the same degrees of freedom is not conclusively demonstrated. The explanation attributing that pattern completely to randomness, is not acceptable. The allowed mutations in the waggle spots represents unknown numbers of mutations in other spots erased by correcting mechanisms (we know they exist) and/or selection of some sort. If the group of primates is compared to the non-primates the total number of mutations are 10 and 11(13 if the Guinea pig is counted) indicating a similar mutation rate for both. If one group has better fidelity than the other there should be a significant difference depending on time, with the better kept record having less defects than the other. That is not shown. The conclusion I draw from the pattern and those numbers is that both are being maintained. I await the significance.