[1] McComas and Bagenal [2007] (hereinafter referred to as MB) have presented a discussion of the reconnectionmediated interaction of the Jovian magnetosphere with the interplanetary medium, which they suggest to be significantly different to that at Earth. In the latter case, it is well established that ‘open’ flux is produced at the magnetopause when the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is directed opposite to the equatorial planetary field, is transported to the tail by the solar wind, and returns as closed flux via plasma sheet reconnection preferentially during substorms, thus forming the Dungey cycle of flux transport [e.g., Dungey, 1961]. MB propose that the consequences of open flux production at Jupiter are different, however, due to a suggested difficulty of closed flux tube return from the tail against a substantial down-tail flow of iogenic plasma. They suggest instead that open flux is effectively removed by two-lobe reconnection when the IMF has the opposite polarity, such that the open flux in the system remains small. Two-lobe reconnection has been discussed theoretically for many years [e.g., Dungey, 1963; Cowley, 1981], though convincing evidence for its occurrence at Earth has only recently been found [e.g., Imber et al., 2006, 2007]. Here, however, we question both aspects of MB’s discussion. [2] With regard to the return of tail flux by plasma sheet reconnection, MB characterise the process as requiring closed field contraction over distances of 1500–2000 RJ at speeds of 40 km s , thus requiring 30–40 days. They suggest this to be unlikely given the surrounding fast down-tail flow of iogenic plasma. However, we regard this scenario as being unduly pessimistic, first because the estimate of the distance to the tail reconnection site is unrealistically large, and second because the closed flux tube contraction speed is unrealistically small, both contributing to unrealistically large estimates of the transport time. MB’s estimate of the distance to the tail reconnection site is essentially the length of the entire tail of open field lines, obtained by multiplying the solar wind speed by the residence time of open flux tubes in the lobe. This time is estimated to be 3–4 days on the basis that open field lines flow toward the plasma sheet at 10% of the solar wind speed ( 40 km s ) for 10% reconnection efficiency with the IMF, leading to a tail length of 1500–2000 RJ as indicated above. In fact, this significantly underestimates the length of the Jovian tail, since the lobe flow speed is slowed relative to MB’s estimate by the ratio of the lobe and IMF field strengths, i.e. factors of two to three, while an overall magnetopause reconnection efficiency of 10% seems optimistic. A more realistic residence time is 10– 20 days [Nichols et al., 2006], leading to tail lengths of 5000–10000 RJ in agreement with Lepping et al. [1983]. [3] The main point to emphasise, however, is not the inaccuracy of MB’s tail length estimate, but that such estimates provide no information about the location of the tail reconnection sites, other than an upper limit. For Earth, for example, similar estimates produce tail lengths of 1000 RE [e.g., Milan, 2004], while substorm-related reconnection is typically initiated at down-tail distances of 20–30 RE [e.g., Nagai and Machida, 1998]. While flux return from the distant tail may be unlikely as MB suggest, a reasonable conclusion is that open flux will then accumulate until reconnection occurs substorm-like sufficiently close to the planet that the closed flux is indeed able to return. The return flow speeds are then expected to be comparable to the lobe Alfven speed [e.g., Badman and Cowley, 2007], at least an order of magnitude faster than the return speeds employed in MB’s estimate. [4] Significant evidence indeed exists for sporadic reconnection in the Jovian nightside plasma sheet at distances of 100 RJ, resulting in ion jets directed both toward and away from the planet [e.g., Woch et al., 2002]. These dynamics are generally assumed to relate to pinch-off of distended closed field lines and the down-tail release of iogenic plasma occurring as part of the Vasyliunas cycle [Vasyliunas, 1983]. However, supposing that after plasmoid release the reconnection continues into the tail lobe, then closed flux is generated that will clearly flow back to the planet unencumbered by surrounding down-tail flow, whether the combined reconnection is envisaged as largescale [Cowley et al., 2003], or occurs more sporadically and multiply on smaller scales [Kivelson and Southwood, 2005]. While Dungeyand Vasyliunas-cycle tail reconnection need not be coherently related in this way, the argument is sufficient to show that open flux return from the Jovian tail by plasma sheet reconnection is not as problematic as MB suggest. [5] We now turn to MB’s second argument, that open flux can instead be effectively removed from the tail by two-lobe reconnection poleward of the cusp, such that the amount of open flux in the system remains small. This requires the open flux removal rate by two-lobe reconnection for southward-directed IMF, averaged over typical GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L10101, doi:10.1029/2007GL032645, 2008