This paper reviews the current knowledge on Mediterranean cyclones and the open future research questions. I found that the paper provides a complete and in depth description of the characteristics, genesis, tracks, dynamics of Mediterranean cyclones, including various subcategories, on a synoptic and climatological basis. It includes the whole range of previous studies without any exception, focusing on new findings, consistencies /inconsistencies, and queries. I think that the paper is excellent and provides a fundamental and robust background for many researchers working on Mediterranean weather and climate. I suggest that it can be accepted in its present form. The only comment I have refers to the abstract. I think that it should be reorganised to reveal main findings and challenges and should be so generalised. 

This paper compiles numerous previous works in which different aspects of Mediterranean cyclones have been studied. Mechanisms of different scales that play an important role in the formation and evolution of cyclones are analysed. Efforts made to improve forecast are reported and numerous climatological studies of cyclones in the Mediterranean are referenced, as well as the hight impact weather that is frequently associated. Special attention is devoted to medicanes, small cyclones with tropical characteristics that are the subject of numerous recent studies. Some little-known aspects are highlighted in the text and are presented as the object of possible future work.

For this reason, I highly recommend the publication of this paper, which can be a good guide to advance knowledge of Mediterranean cyclones and which poses challenges for future studies.

This review is a thorough overview of Mediterranean cyclones and the many aspects of their climatology, dynamics, forecasting, and impacts. It gives a clear summary of the open research questions and proposes areas for future research focus.

The paper is well-written and enjoyable to read, and contains a wealth of references and important information.

I have a few minor comments and suggestions.

1. I suggest to move the climatology section to before the dynamics section. This is because as I was reading the dynamics section, I found myself wondering about when the features most commonly occur and where. This information is provided later in the climatology section, but I think would give a better flow being first.
2. In order to summarise the many studies looking at future changes in Mediterranean cyclones, I suggest including a table or a schematic. Section 4.4 gives a lot of information about the different studies that have investigated this question, and it is not easy to discern the overall picture.
3. For WCD, either British English or American English are accepted. Most of the paper is written in British English, but there are a few inconsistencies. Please check through for consistency of spelling of e.g. modelling/modeling, characterise/characterize, centre/center, favouring/favoring, Also consistent spelling of parameterization.

Some typographical and text suggestions:

1. Line 76: “to” -> “of”.
2. Line 129 and 131: The abbreviation DI has already been defined so “dry intrusion” can be shortened. Also on line 131 – it states that frontal precipitation is weaker on average, but I’m not clear in comparison with what?
3. Line 132: Could the weak precipitation associated with the suppression of convection by the DI?
4. Line 209: I’m not sure you need a separate subsection here – this is still about the special case of medicanes.
5. Line 216: In the Midlietta and Rotunno paper, how many storms were put into each group? In other words how robust is the classification?
6. Sections 2.5 and 2.6 – this is the place in the paper that I particularly was wondering about the climatology and when medicanes preferentially happened.
7. Line 362-365: This is a long sentence – consider revising.
8. Line 398: “secondary cyclone” is not clearly defined in the paper. In previous sections is seems to be associated with lee cyclogenesis. It would be good to be consistent with terminology.
9. Line 512: “Hart diagrams” have not really been defined in the paper.
10. Line 524: Sentence beginning “Their formation…” -> “Their formation over the arid areas of North Africa means Sharav cyclones have a low moisture content and are associated with dust storms.”
11. Line 593: Suggest to start the sentence with “Changes in cyclone frequency/intensity…”
12. Line 851: I think “vital” or “important” rather than “mandatory”.