Reply to `On the non-existence of strictly diabatic molecular electronic basesʹ

In the preceding Letter (Chem. Phys. Lett. 330 (2000) 629–632) Kendrick, Mead and Truhlar publish a Comment in which they object to our formulation of the `necessary conditions for having diabatic statesʹ. It is shown that relating themselves to what was not written in the article, these authors jumped to the wrong conclusions. The example they provided is here used to show the simplicity with which the above-mentioned necessary conditions lead to a set of `quantizedʹ values for the non-adiabatic coupling terms.