Van den Hoven et al. contested my interpretation of Wernicke regarding the role of the arcuate fasciculus (AF) in word production. Here, I clarify and defend my interpretation. They also questioned the assumption of AF subtracts in my modern account, stating that subtracts are difficult to distinguish anatomically due to overlapping terminations. Here, I make clear that overlap in terminations was actually part of my account, in which differentially damaged subtracts explained patients’ differential naming and repetition performance as well as types of repetition performance.