The discusser wishes to thank the authors for examining the potential of artificial neural networks ANNs in estimation of evaporation in a hot and dry region. The discusser would like to present the following important points of view, which the authors and potential researchers need to consider: 1. In the study, the gamma test GT was proposed as an alternative model for the determination of optimum input combination of an ANN model. However, the reliability of the GT was not taken into consideration. The GT results were given for the five different input combinations in Table 3. The performances of the ANN for each input combination could be investigated to examine the reliability of the GT see Kisi 2008a . Or, the GT technique could be compared to another method, e.g., principle component analysis Kisi 2009a . According to the GT, the relative importance of inputs was found as W Ed RH T in the study. This finding contradicts with the related literature Sudheer et al. 2002; Keskin and Terzi 2006; Kisi 2009b . Keskin and Terzi 2006 modeled the pan evaporations using an ANN technique and found that the T is more important than the W. Kisi 2009b investigated the accuracy of the ANN in pan evaporation estimation and found that the RH is more significant than the W. In addition, on page 804 the authors say that “Using temperature data alone, Sudheer et al. 2002 found that a properly trained ANN model could reasonably estimate the evaporation values at their study area in a temperate region.” This implies that the T is more important than the other variables i.e., RH, W on evaporation. On page 809 the authors also state that “Tan et al. 2007 found the important variables were: solar radiation, relative humidity, air temperature, and surface wind speed.” However, Tan et al. 2007 also found that the RH was more important in estimation pan evaporation than the W. This also contradicts with the relative importance W Ed RH T that was found in this study. 2. The ANN and NNARX models whose inputs are W, T, RH, and Ed were compared with simple empirical models, Linacre comprising T, Tdew and Marciano comprising U, es ,ea inputs, in Table 4. This is not a valid comparison. It does not make sense to compare simple empirical methods with more complicated methods ANN/NNARX containing four parameters. In addition to the comparison shown in Table 4, the ANN/NNARX and empirical methods could also be compared using the same input parameters. In addition, the comparison with empirical pan evaporation models has not been