All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Dr. Duhamel,
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript # 39842 entitled "Computerized tomography elucidates ontogeny within the basal therapsid clade Biarmosuchia and compels revision of the genus Lemurosaurus Broom, 1949" is now accepted for publication in PeerJ.
Thank you again for considering PeerJ and we look forward to your future contributions to the Journal.
sincerely,
Claudia Marsicano
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Kenneth De Baets, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Dr. Duhamel,
The revised version of your manuscript Ms # 39842 entitled "Computerized tomography elucidates ontogeny within the basal therapsid clade Biarmosuchia and compels revision of the genus Lemurosaurus Broom, 1949" co-authored with Benoit, Day, Rubidge & Fernandez has been reviewed and only one concern was pointed out by a Section Editor, who asked if it is possible to make available the Raw CT scans Data of your reconstructions as in the Morphobank link provided only include those of the surface 3D scans.
I would appreciate it if you could answer this request as soon as possible so I can proceed with your manuscript.
Sincerely,
Claudia Marsicano
no comment
no comment
no comment
I have gone through the manuscript again in detail and carefully read the detailed authors' repsponse to the queries of all three reviewers and from my perspective all points have been addressed to my satsifaction and I have n0othing to add at this point. Hence, I recommend publication of this manuscript in PeerJ.
Dear Dr. Duhamel
Your Ms # 39842 entitle "Computerized tomography elucidates ontogeny within the basal therapsid clade Biarmosuchia and compels revision of the genus Lemurosaurus Broom, 1949" co-authored with Benoit, Day, & Rubidge have been reviewed by three reviewers and myself.
After analyzed all reviews, I conclude as Editor that your Ms needs Major Revision before it can be considered for publication in PeerJ.
The reviewers have commented about different aspects of the Ms, but concur about the need for less ambiguous data to justify the erection of the new taxon based on specimen NMQR 1702. Your arguments based solely on ontogenetic differences observed in the CT-scans seem to be rather speculative.
The paper needs a thorough overhaul - in terms of reorganization of the descriptive section of the Ms focusing on Lemurosaurus, significant comparisons with other relevant specimens, a better sustain discussion on the ontogenetic traits in Biarmosuchia in a phylogenetic context.
Therefore, I am requesting that you revise your Ms according to the detailed reviews enclose, taking particular attention to the points mentioned above, to make your general discussion and conclusions better supported.
As the revisions required are extensive enough, another round of review may be necessary when you resubmit your revised manuscript.
Thank you for submitting your Ms to PeerJ and I look forward to receiving your revision.
Sincerely,
Claudia Marsicano
Please see attached PDF file.
Please see attached PDF file
Please see attached PDF file
no comment (see below)
no comment (see below)
no comment (see below)
The manuscript entitled “Computerized tomography elucidates ontogeny within the basal therapsid clade Biarmosuchia and compels revision of the genus Lemurosaurus Broom, 1949” provides relevant information and novel aspects on the hypothetical ontogeny of members of the clade Biarmosuchia. However, as the study deals with a number of closely related specimens that do not represent the same species, some of the aspects discussed need to be emphasized more as hypothetical. In general, I consider the manuscript worthy of publication, but the points listed below should be carefully considered and address for a revised version.
General points:
• Make sure to be consistent in your language for example with regards to the use of specimen numbers, e.g. RC55 vs. RC 55
• The description is sometimes a bit too generalized or includes rather common knowledge, e.g. in line 385 that “The dentary is the largest and anterior-most bone of the lower jaw…” or line 423 “The articular is the posterior-most bone of the lower jaw…“, which is essentially the case in all tetrapods. Maybe check the description and delete these unnecessary sections.
• The authors could add comparisons relevant for identification, i.e. the diagnostic characters and features for Biarmosuchia, Burnetiamorpha and or the specimens currently assigned to Lemurosaurus.
• For the description of CGP MJF 22 there could be additional figures especially highlighting areas and features that are described in the text as revealed by CT scans, such as the separation of the parietal (line 517f) as well as for the palatal view (line 553f, vomer). Additional figures of the CT scanned area would clearly add to the understanding of that individual specimen, as the presented Figure (Fig 8) is not showing several features clearly. The outline drawings atop of the photographs are covering described sutures or characteristics.
• References should be checked as some taxon names are not in italics (Line 1237 Simoliophis, Line 1266 Thrinaxodon liorhinus, Line 1343 Anteosaurus magnificus, Line 1405 Australopithecus robustus, Line1417 Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis, Line1469 Thrinaxodon liorhinus)
• The Discussion is partitioned into 8 subsections, which are listed in the following with selected comments, that I would like to see considered:
1. Orbit size – as far as I remember this has already been discussed in detail by Sidor and colleagues, I think in the Hopson Festschrift, please check and potentially expand or modify the discussion accordingly
2. Tooth replacement – while potentially relevant, this aspects seems somehwhat far-fetched to support the juvenile status of a specimen, as this certainly needs to be considered in a phylogenetic framework, which is thus far lacking in the frame work of this study. If possibly, please add a more quantitative analysis this!
3. Cranial bosses and pachyostosis – again, while this is a valid point, this also is an aspect that cannot be considered by itself, like orbit size for instance as you argue yourself. The lack of bosses and pachyostosis could simply reflect or more basal phylogenetic position of the respective taxon and hence, only a proper ontogenetic series of a single species could enlighten this aspect
4. Radial vasculature pattern – I’m somewhat skeptical about your sample size here and the lack of information for some specimens, but yes I agree that this is a valid point
5. Braincase and bony labyrinth ossification – valid point, but again should not be considered on its own but in combination with all other characters (including orbital size!)
6. Fusion of the preparietals and internal parietal sutures – in this section you should certainly include the recent publication by Marilao et al. 2020 (see below)
7. A hypothetical biarmosuchian ontogenetic series – this section is probably the most speculative and problematic, as it does not necessarily seem intuitive to reconstruct an ontogenetic sequence from closely related but distinct species within a higher clade. However, as it is phrased “hypothetical”, it should also be treated as such and sometimes it could phrased more carefully rather than certain.
8. Taxonomic revision of Lemurosaurus Broom, 1949 – overall, this very relevant section almost disappears in comparison to the more detailed description of the rather undiagnostic other specimens above. Maybe the manuscript could be modified to put this specimen in focus rather than having in listed and named in this very brief section
Minor corrections
Line 110: change to “… Burnetiamorpha indet., because… ”
Line 223 and 446: change to “gen. et sp. indet.”
Line 246: change to “anterior end”
Line 272: change to “disappears”
Line 297: change to “vertically”
Line 298: change to “squamosal”
Line 340: delete second “could not”
Line 387: “ten” instead of “10” since you should be consistent in one sentence, where you lateron mention “five”; and change to “… on the right ramus…”
Line 454: change to “well preserved”
Line 473: change to: “The lacrimal is a quadrangular bone, forming most of…”
Line 475: delete on “.”
Line 591: change to “anteromedial”
Line 922: change to “orbits” and “lengths”
Line 951: change to “tooth replacement”
Line 968: change to “linked”
Line 1005: change to “Estemmenosuchus”
Line 1046: change to “well ossified”
Line 1061: in this context you should cite and potentially discuss: Marilao et al. 2020 Histology of the preparietal: a neomorphic cranial element in dicynodont therapsids https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2020.1770775
Line 1089: I don’t really see how this reference to paired parietals in Dinosauria being indicative of juveniles is relevant in this regard, maybe simply stick to references to more closely related taxa unless it has broader evolutionary implications that you would like to address
Line 1121: change to “…reliable juvenile characters on their own…”
Line 1156: something is missing in this sentence, maybe “… lower jaw that was described …”
Line 1178: change to “well-developed”
The paper gets into very difficult philosophical territory: to what extent can morphological variation be attributed to ontogeny vs. phylogeny? I could imagine some reviewers taking a strong position within either of these camps, especially in regard to Lemurosaurus and the validity of the proposed Peterotherium (formerly referred to Lemurosaurus by Sidor & Welman, 2003). A parallel debate rages in the realm of dinosaur paleontology regarding the nature of cranial ornamentation in pachycephalosaurs (Horner & Goodwin, 2009) and ceratopsians (Scanella & al., 2014). Nevertheless, it’s important that these debates take place in the public sphere so that future paleontologists can investigate these hypotheses with new data. So I would like to see this published in some form and would recommend “Acceptance with Minor Revision,” pending that the authors take a more conservative position instead of splitting BP/1/816 and NMQR 1702 and/or erecting new taxa (unless those new taxa have clear autoapomorphies).
Maybe one such approach could be to: Propose the ontogenetic hypothesis (i.e., Fig. 23)—accepting that there is some ambiguity in the taxonomic assignments (I am okay, for example, with the referral of Rubidgina to Burnetiamorpha indet.)—but DO NOT go so far as to erect a new taxon for NMQR 1702 until more specimens and a more complete ontogenetic sequence comes to light. A more conservative approach would be especially merited for now since there is no accompanying phylogenetic analysis in the paper.
My gut reaction is that this paper is too ambitious and draws too many conclusions with too little data. Also, since skull size alone is not a consistent indicator of age or sexual maturity in many tetrapods, and neither is suture closure (Bailleul & al., 2016), then it is still possible that the smaller BP/1/816 and the larger NMQR 1702 could still fall within a shared ontogenetic sequence (maybe one was better fed or lived during more equitable conditions, or their size was density-dependent or sex-specific like modern alligators) calling into question the authors’ decision to split these specimens which were, incidentally, co-existing entities in the context of the Cistecephalus assemblage. The variation could be evaluated in the future with more varieties of specimens at different sizes and with histologic ontogenetic staging (Griffin & Nesbitt, 2016).
See above
See above
See above
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.