In response to the note by Eduardo Dubuc, I would like to urge the workers in the field of SDG who use this topos (and it is hardly easy to avoid doing so!) to name it the "Dubuc topos". I myself have used several other names for it, such as G (for germ determined) or \tilde(B^op) for the site of definition, and this includes my papers in the JPPA on Synthetic Aspects of C-infinity mappings (one with F. Gago), my paper with M. Heggie in Contemporary Mathematics, and even in our joint paper B-D, Local concepts, where we called it G. In fact, this is perfectly appropriate and I always referred to the sources. Therefore, it may thus seem like a strange request, and even more strange that I agree to this request at this point (assuming that I will ever write anything again in SDG!), but I understand it perfectly. It is annoying to see one's work being appropriated by others who, little by little contribute to the obliteration of any direct reference (except pro forma) to the originator of these ideas. This is definitely wrong and has done damage which may not be too late to repair. I have been a witness to the developments that Eduardo Dubuc relates in his note and I herewith corroborate their authenticity. Moreover, I have related these very facts to many people, including one of the authors of the Moerdijk-Reyes team, who blamed the other one for it! I have also said as much in refereeing papers by the Moerdijk-Reyes team, with copies to the authors. This is not a fib of someone's imagination, as may be easy to infer not knowing the facts or the people involved. Something has now triggered it all back, it is unimportant what did it. What matters is that this sad and obscure aspect of the history of categories and of our group has never come up into the open. Now that the author himself has felt the need to do so, I have no problem supporting him and wishing that at least from now on his work will be given the credit it deserves. Marta Bunge