+++To journal:
Strict centered alignment instead of decimal-point alignment of numbers in tables: This is inacceptable as it
- contradicts established typographic wisdom aiming at optimal readability
- contradicts ApJ's own earlier practice, see, e.g., Table 2 of  Turck-Chie`ze et al. 2001, ApJL, 555:L69–L73
- is unasthetic.
So please align with our requests in this respect.
#AB: You need to know that they changed their style in 2017.
#AB: We are just exposing our ignorance.
#MR: I haven't said "your own journal style", but "your own earlier practice"
%MJK In principle, their practise is totally stupid, hence I would still insist on having the tables decimal-point intended.
%MJK Can't we just say:
We still insist on decimal-point alignment of numbers in tables 
instead of centered ones. This is because we have quantities with 
negative and positive values, and the readability gets much worse 
#with centering. To us this new policy appears non-optimal for 
#scientific papers. 
#AB: could refer to this, which is recent
with centering. See page 4 of ApJ 883, 119 (2019) where numbers
were right bound.
%MJK Very good, thanks!
#AB: could add
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab3ec0

+++ Eq. (5): wrong, "\cal D = \partial_t + S x \partial_y"
#AB: add this
+++ i.e., \times -> x
%MJK Yes! Thanks.

+++ Sec. 2.3.1, l. 2: \cal E wrong: "\overline{\mathbf{u}\times\mathbf{b}}"

#AB: somewhere around here, you canged ," -> ", but this is a style issue.
#AB: So I would take it out.
%MJK Yes, I removed it; in the last round we consistently proposed the opposite, but they
%MJK did not agree. So anyways, it is useless.

+++ l. 4 below (10): solutions -> problems

+++ l. 2/3 below (22): I think we need "\langle\bra{\rho\uu^2}^{1/2}\rangle_t" and must not redefine <.>. 
+++                   But then we have the problem, that <.> and <.>_\xi are not yet introduced.
+++                   -> definition has to be moved


+++ p. 6, left, l. 9/10: "emergence and saturation of the wavenumber"  - bad language 
+++                     -> "emergence and saturation of the Fourier mode with wavenumber"

+++ p. 7, right, l. 2: delete "growing" as it's not the wavenumber which is growing, but the dynamo eigenmode

+++ Eq. (27) wrong, left side should read "\partial_t \overline{\mathbf{A}}"

+++ p. 13, left, l. 9 from below: "smallest components" -> "smallest wavenumber components" 


+++ p. 16, l. 3 below (C3): (\rho_0)^{1/2} -> \rho^{1/2}

+++       l. 3 below (C12): "i,j" -> "i,j,k"

+++       below (C9): delete "the second contribution in"
      
+++       right col., 1st para, l. 7: delete "the first term in"
+++                   2nd para, l. 8: delete "the first term in"

%MR: more trouble
[p. 2, Marston et al. Do they really find \eta_xx <0? Or typo?]
%MJK See Squire & Bhattacharjee 2015, ApJ, 813, 52 Figure 10. Only now you realize this??
%MJK so not a typo.
%MR: Yes and yes. So would we add the reference as I proposed in e-mail?

p. 4, right, l. 1:  $\mathbf{f}_M=\mathbf{f}_M$ -> $\mathbf{f}_K=\mathbf{f}_M$, 0 bold !
%MJK Your correction is not right either, it should be
%MR: yes

$\bm{f}_{\rm M}=\bm{F}_{\rm M} = \bm 0$

Now corrected in the proofs.

p. 5 right, 2nd para, l. 10/11: "with, ...  ,"  no commas !

Suggested a correction in the proofs.

p. 6 right, 3rd para, l. 1/2: magnetically and kinetically ->  magnetokinetically

Corrected.

p. 8 left, last para, l. 7: delete  "or a bit"

They had lost the word "larger" there since the last proof. I already re-instated it.