itself in the thermal evolution of $H_{c2}(T<T_{N},T_{c})$ \[Ref.[@Mag-Sup-Fischer-1990]\]. Noteworthy, the thermal evolution of $H_{c2}(T<T_{N},T_{c})$ of  both HoNi$_{2}$B$_{2}$C and DyNi$_{2}$B$_{2}$C \[Ref.[@Canfield-RNi2B2C-Hc2]\] are very similar which, considering the above-mentioned similarity in their magnetic properties, suggests that the involved pairbreaking effects (in particular the magnon-mediated one) are similar. This, in turn, suggests that the magnon characteristic (say low-energy magnon spectra) in both compounds must be similar. This is indeed the case: the analysis of Sec.IV.C-D showed that the energy cost for magnon excitation in both compounds is practically equal ($\Delta\simeq$ 8 K see Tab.I). Therefore doping of Ho into DyNi$_{2}$B$_{2}$C (up to 80% but still $T_{c}<T_{N}$) would not lead to a softening of $\Delta$. Then, for this concentration range, there should be no variation in $H_{c2}$ and $T_{c}$ even though the deGennes factor does vary (remember that within the antiferromagnetic state, the Abrikosov-Gorkov pairbreaking mechanism is not valid). This provides an additional experimental confirmation of the hypothesis of Cho et al [@Cho-RNi2B2C-deGeness] that the magnon spectrum of (Dy$_{1-x}$Ho$_{x}$)Ni$_{2}$B$_{2}$C is hardly modified for $x<$0.8. In contrast, for (Dy$_{1-x}$Ho$_{x}$)Ni$_{2}$B$_{2}$C ($x>$0.8), the onset of superconductivity occurs within the paramagnetic state and consequently the Dy dopant depresses $T_{c}$ linearly as expected from the Abrikosov-Gorkov theory.

In summary, 