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. Reisz and colleagues:
Thanks for revising your manuscript based on the concerns raised by the reviewers. I now believe that your manuscript is suitable for publication. Congratulations! I look forward to seeing this work in print, and I anticipate it being an important resource for groups studying small early Permian parareptiles. Thanks again for choosing PeerJ to publish such important work.
Best,
-joe
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mark Young, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Dr. Reisz and colleagues:
Thanks for revising your manuscript. The reviewers are mostly satisfied with your revision (as am I). Great! However, there are a few issues still to entertain. Please address these ASAP so we may move towards acceptance of your work.
Please note that Reviewer 1 kindly provided a marked-up version of your manuscript.
Best,
-joe
I believe this contribution is interesting for publication in PeerJ. As stated in the first round of revisions, the text is clear and well written. The work presents the description of yet another new taxon for the Richard Spur locality, which enriches local paleontology and knowledge about Parareptilia.
Much of the review has been answered, including the addition of a figure of the specimen. Therefore, I only have small comments:
1. I noticed a small discrepancy between Figure 2 and 3. In this case, Figure 3 does not show the maxillary teeth that are illustrated in Fig. 2. I believe they should include this information in the caption of Figure 3 ("The maxillary teeth were removed for that reason...").
2. I believe they could add more information about the dentition in the description, such as the implantation geometry (subthecodon, pleurodont?), presence of resorption pits, plicidentine and the probable mode of replacement (which appears to be labio-vertical). In this case, look at Bertin et al. (2018). Current Perspectives on Tooth Implantation, Attachment, and Replacement in Amniota.
(I marked the figures in the PDF file where I believe this information can be extracted.)
3. Some typos were marked in the PDF file.
No comment.
No comment.
Mostly excellent with very minor errors throughout (see 4. Additional comments, below).
Excellent.
Excellent. I was able to run their Mesquite matrix in PAUP and find the 14 MPTs found by the authors.
The authors have addressed most of my concerns of the original submitted version but there remain many minor errors to fix up (itemized below). These are minor enough that, once fixed, the paper will be acceptable for publication.
Line 1: place a full stop after “gen”
Lines 43, 45: place commas after “et al.”
Line 63: I suggest reorganizing this line to read [Genera found at] “Richards Spur include Colobomycter (two species), Delorhynchus (three species),”
Line 81: the multiplication symbol is used earlier (14.5 × 14.5) but an ‘x’ is used later (43 x 73) in same sentence. Is this a weird translation error?
Line 90: this paragraph needs more explicit information for the search parameters, so I suggest adding this in parentheses and changeing this line to “4.0a169 (heuristic search with 1000 replicates, tree-branch swapping, etc.*) and the matrix updated in Mesquite.” *bootstrap analysis, and so on
Line 115: typo in “the the”
Line 118: I believe general English writing practice is to use numerals for numbers greater than 10, so change “(nineteen maxillary teeth versus twenty-four” to “(19 maxillary teeth versus 24)”. Ditto for line 203.
Line 146: bold “pt”
Lines 153 and 184: although they mention a right premaxilla in the abstract (line 24), the authors still refer to the premaxilla shown in figure 4 as the “left” when it is clearly a right premaxilla. Ditto for figure 4 caption in lines 184-185 and on page 25.
Line 157: “Acleistorhinus pteroticus” and “Colobomycter pholeter” should be italicized
Line 174: place a comma after “length”
Line 190: insert “that of” after “resembles”. Also, “violation” of ICZN Article 51.3 in this line.
Line 291: change line to “fenestra was bordered by the jugal, the postorbital, the squamosal, and the quadratojugal, as is seen in”
Line 312: figure 2A (the dorsal view) should called out here, not 2B
Line 338: “Of the five dentigerous elements noted in other acleistorhinids” Hmmm. No exctopterygoid teeth in Colobomycter pholeter according to MacDougall, Scott et al. (2017)
Line 431: the ectopterygoid is not preserved. The element preserved in association with the quadrate flange of the pterygoid is the epipterygoid (properly labelled in figure 7)
Lines 435-436: delete “and indicates the probable presence of a suborbital foramen” because the epipterygoid has nothing to do with that opening
Lines 444-445: another "violation” of ICZN Article 51.3 with “Klastomycter conodentatus (Modesto & Reisz, 2008)”
Lines 468-471: change these lines to “Figure 9 shows the strict consensus of the 14 most parsimonious trees that were recovered following 73882182 rearrangements. Each tree has a length of 633 steps, a consistency index (CI) of 0.348, a retention index (RI) of 0.564, and a rescaled consistency index (RC) index of 0.196.”
Line 479: change “Delorhynchus, Colobomycter” to “Delorhynchus, and Colobomycter”
Lines 481-484: the taxonomic information here is a little muddled. Acleistorhinidae and Lanthanosuchoidea were erected is an evolutionary systematic (i.e. non-phylogenetic systematic) context in which it was acceptable to erect a family-group name for a single species. Colleagues using phylogenetic systematics realized that many names became redundant; some advocated salvaging well established names, and clade definitions were proposed to bound included taxa. I haven’t kept up with the official or updated phylogenetic definitions for Acleistorhinidae and Lanthanosuchoidea, but the (original) definition for the former by Modesto (1999) doesn’t work for the authors’ MPTs (it “creates” a paraphyletic Acleistorhinidae), and the (original) definition for latter by deBraga & Reisz (1995) would apply only to Acleistorhinus and Lanthanosuchus (Lanthanosuchidae). As the authors state, parareptile phylogeny is in flux and it is wise to eschew the creation of new names. However, I think this section is a little underdeveloped. Perhaps the authors should refer to Klastomycter as an “acleistorhinid" (i.e. using parentheses, as we do with “microsaurs” and as you used “acleistorhinids” in Rowe et al. 2023) and explain here why they are doing so (if the Modesto [1999] definition of Acleistorhinidae is indeed the only one published).
Line 548: change “Macdougall” to “MacDougall”
Line 570: capitalize “permian”. Do the same for lines 575 and 592
Line 572: capitalize “fort sill”
Line 576: several words need to be capitalized here
Line 596: capitalize “permian” and “laurasia”
Figure 9: the bottom of the “p” in Erpetonyx” is cropped off. In the tree itself, many of the corner joints between branches and at T-intersections are poorly fitted, with overshoots and/or notches. The authors need to polish it up in Photoshop.
Thank you for improving the manuscript, most of the significant issues (e.g., regarding the formal parts of the establishment of the new taxon) are addressed, but I have a couple more comments to the text:
Lines 152–153: the italics on Greek are present for the genus but absent for the species. Please unify.
Lines 182–183: missing italics for Acleistorhinus pteroticus and Colobomycter pholeter.
Lines 199–205: “crown length” is a bit ambiguous, because it may mean the apicobasal length (height) of the tooth (which is what the Authors mean, I presume) but also its mesiodistal (~anteroposterior) diameter. Please specify.
Line 201 (“cavity”): “alveolus”?
Figure captions: The Authors added the specimen number, which is very good, but removed the taxonomic name, which is unnecessary – all of these information (the specimen number, the name, and the notion that the specimen is the holotype) are important. This is especially problematic in the case of Figs 1 and 2, the captions for which read “holotype of BMRP2008.3.3” – but BMRP2008.3.3 is the holotype of Klastomycter conodentatus, not of itself. I suggest one of the following: “BMRP2008.3.3, the holotype of Klastomycter conodentatus”, „Klastomycter conodentatus BMRP2008.3.3 (holotype)”, or „Klastomycter conodentatus, holotype (BMRP2008.3.3)”. Also, it is unnecessary to provide a “source credit” for each figure, if it is one of the Authors. If the Authors feel it necessary, this may be specified in Author contributions.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
Dear Dr. Reisz and colleagues:
Thanks for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. I have now received three independent reviews of your work, and as you will see, the reviewers raised some concerns about the research. Despite this, these reviewers are optimistic about your work and the potential impact it will lend to research on small early Permian parareptile. Thus, I encourage you to revise your manuscript, accordingly, considering all the concerns raised by the reviewers.
Please improve the content and clarity of the figures and tables (see suggestions by the reviewers). Please also ensure that all appropriate references are included.
Please focus on the phylogenetic analysis. Your workflow MUST be repeatable, with all sequence identifiers provided and all parameters included (alignment, data inclusion, phylogeny estimation, etc.). Reviewer 2 has commented extensively on this.
Please also consider giving us a picture of this wonderful organism!
While the concerns of the reviewers are relatively minor, this is a major revision to ensure that the original reviewers have a chance to evaluate your responses to their concerns. There are many suggestions, which I am sure will greatly improve your manuscript once addressed.
NOTE: Reviewers 1 and 3 have provided their critiques on your manuscript, so use these files in addition to their comments to address all the concerns.
I look forward to seeing your revision, and thanks again for submitting your work to PeerJ.
Good luck with your revision,
-joe
This study provides a comprehensive description of a new parareptile taxon from Richards Spur. The manuscript is well-written, with detailed and accurate descriptions and excellent images. The work is very important, as it describes a new species of parareptile, a group that is relatively little known. Furthermore, it highlights the richness of amniote fossils in the region and provides relevant details about the area. I only have minor comments:
1. Regarding the figures, I believe it is important to include a photograph of the original material in the main text or as supplementary material.
2. I noticed the absence of some references and suggested the inclusion of another one (they are noted in the PDF file).
3. I found a small error in the Systematic Paleontology section. The name of the taxon must be in italics, and in the 'species' section, the taxon must have its full name: Klastomycter conodentatus.
Some typos were also noted, but nothing problematic.
I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript with minor changes.
No comment.
Their findings are relevant for the study of parareptile evolution and their relationships with other Paleozoic contemporaries.
No additional comments.
The phylogenetic portion of the paper is missing methodology; there is no data matrix or Nexus file.
Fine.
Once minor corrections are made to the text, phylogenetic work is beefed up, and an extra figure is provided, this will be an important contribution to the study of early reptiles.
The fossil and the segmentations are fantastic. However, in its current form, this manuscript is a unsatisfactory contribution to the study of early reptiles (the submission looks to have been rushed). Following moderate revisions, it would be a fine contribution to the journal.
I have the following comments & corrections for the authors:
General: descriptions of paired elements alternate between the singular and the plural in spots: stick to the convention of describing an element in the singular, unless left and right sides are different or some aspect of the articulated paired elements is to be described. IMO the authors use “connection” and “connected” overmuch and it would be preferable to state actual joint morphology (lap, scarf, butt, serrate) and/or to simply state “suture” (or “contact”). I want to see a separate figure for the maxilla showing it is several views given the phylogenetic importance of this element. The phylogenetic portion of the paper is anemic; there is no means to replicate the results independently. This is the primary reason why I scored the submission as requiring moderate revisions. Finally, some statement on the inference of the ontogenetic age of the specimen is needed (eg. suggested by the serrate nature of the midline suture between the frontals ventrally, etc.)
Line 17: change “discovered from” to “recovered from” or “collected from”
Line 45: change “who” to “that” (“who” is a relative pronoun used to introduce a clause giving further information about a person or people previously mentioned [ie, not animals])
Line 55: why “enigmatic”? Aren’t they better known and documented now than eg, early diapsids and “protorothrydids”?
Line 57: change “overestimated” to “overstated”
Line 91: fix the open box “character” between “0” and “Sv/h”
Line 99: “inputted” do you mean imported? (data is input, files are imported)
Lines 114-133: this section needs “Holotype”, “Locality and Horizon” and “Etymology” subsections
Line 116: a node is a point joining three or more branches on a cladogram. I am aware that some authors use “node” = “clade” but IMO this is poor form
Line 118: perhaps avoid classifiying your new reptile into the Family Acleistorhinidae Daly, 1969 given that it is not a clade according to your own phylogenetic results (Acleistorhinidae seems to include only Acleistorhinus pteroticus)
Line 120: a species name is bionomial, so the line header here should be “trivial name” or “specific epithet”
Line 148: here it is stated that “the left premaxilla is completely preserved” whereas “the right premaxilla is only present as a thin fragment of the dorsal process” but the segmented right premaxilla is shown in Figure 3 [?]
Line 149: change “while” to “whereas”. Do the same for lines 188 and 202
Lines 165-169: fix up the structure here: authors state that the missing first premaxillary tooth was the same size as the preserved second premaxillary tooth based on the sise of its alveolus, and then go on to infer that the missing first premaxillary tooth was larger than the largest maxillary teeth for the same reason—would it not be more more straightforward to compare the size of the preserved second premaxillary tooth with the preserved maxillary teeth? Also, because the reader cannot compare the premaxillary and the maxillary teeth directly (because they appear in different figures at different scales) can the authors provide tooth crown heights for the largest teeth in both elements?
Lines 179-222: the maxilla receives the greatest attention in the written description. However, the authors present only “exterior” views of this element. Given that the maxilla exhibits a lot of phylogenetic information, I would like to see a separate figure for the maxilla showing it is several views, as opposed to just what we are given in figures 1 and 2. This could be included in a supplementary file.
Line 182: change “Macdougall” to “MacDougall”
Lines 206-207: change “the ventral margin of the orbits and extend past their posterior margin” to “the ventral margin of the orbit, and extends past the orbital posterior margin”
Lines 207-208: with regards to formatting such as “the jugal and quadratojugal” here, “jugal and quadratojugal” is not a noun, so the format should be “the jugal and the quadratojugal”. Same for “the prefrontal and nasal” in line 237, “the lacrimal and jugal” in line 243, “the parietal and postorbital” in line 274, etc.
Lines 211-213: this sentence needs a little polish. First, the authors refer to “the present specimen” and then to “this species” and second they describe the dentition at the start and the end of the sentence, without describing the alternative morphologies (in Colobomycter pholeter and Acleistorhinus pteroticus). Perhaps reword as “The generally homodont marginal dentition in the present specimen differs from that of Colobomycter pholeter and Acleistorhinus pteroticus in that this species has much smaller, more uniformly shaped teeth” to “The marginal dentition in BMRP2008.3.3 differs from the relatively larger and heterodont dentitions in Colobomycter pholeter and Acleistorhinus pteroticus in that the teeth are conspicuously smaller and generally homodont.”
Line 219: change “tubular” to “columnar”
Lines 223-224: change “is connected” to “contacts” (thereby avoid repetition of “connected”, which appears in line 225)
Line 231: change “lays on” to “overlaps”
Line 240: change “lays against” to “overlaps”
Lines 247-248: change sentence to “Although neither prefrontal is fully preserved, a complete picture of this bone is provided by both elements”
Lines 248-255: the authors included their new reptile “in the phylogenetic analysis conducted in Rowe et al. (2023)” but that paper is already published, so they must mean that they scored Klastomycter for the characters in the data matrix of Rowe et al. (2023) and then ran an analysis. . . somehow. There are no specifics as to what kind of analysis (eg, heuristic, branch-and-bound), other necessary details (eg, tree-bisection reconnection), the program used (eg, PAUP*, TNT), nor is there a line of code or data matrix (eg, Nexus file) that would allow independent testing
Line 255: typo in “antorobital”
Line 261: change “lateral transverse flanges which make up” to “a lateral lappet which makes up” and “separate” to “separates”
Line 264: change “are more alike to the condition” to “is more alike the conditions”
Line 280: change “the ventral orbit” to “the ventral margin of the orbit
Line 281: change “posterior orbit” to “posterior margin of the orbit
Line 283: change “as compared to A. pteroticus” to “as compared to that of A. pteroticus”
Line 284: change “were” to “was”; do the same for lines 286, 295, and 307
Line 301: change “fenestrae. and the” to “fenestrae, and that the”
Lines 334-336: this makes no sense to me: how can the choana extend “through the palatine and the pterygoid, and . . . the ectopterygoid” ? Are you referring to the sulcus issuing from the choana ?
Lines 360-361: regarding the format “Klastomycter conodentatus (Rowe et al., 2023)”, this suggests that Rowe et al. (2023) originally erected this species in another genus. See Article 51.3 of the ICZN
Line 417-423: authors describe the quadrate ramus of the pterygoid as “a large semiconical sheet of bone” but they should distinguish the arcuate flange from the quadrate ramus of the pterygoid proper, since presence/absence of the former factors into phylogenetic analyses
Lines 424-429: does the epipterygoid contribute to the basipterygoid recess? If so, how much? Also, how is the presence of a suborbital foramen indicated? Have you confused the epipterygoid with the ectopterygoid?
Line 428: regarding the format “Delorhynchus cifellii (Rowe et al., 2023)” see my comment for lines 360-361
Line 446: change “views” to “view”
Lines 461-462: change “a consistency index (CI) of 0.348, a rescaled consistency index (RC) of 0.564. Homoplasy index (HI) is 0.652, while the RC index is 0.196” to “a consistency index (CI) of 0.348, a retention index (RI) of 0.564, and a rescaled consistency index (RC) is 0.196” (note: the HI is simply = 1-CI, so not critical to report)
Figure 1: lacrimal abbreviation is “la” in part A but is “l” in part C; abbreviation “n = nasal” missing from caption
Figure 7: caption needs an explanation for the numbers that appear on the branches; the corners of most branches need to be cleaned up (ie. fill in “notches” and trim overruns); also: centre the tree in the “box” (is a “box” even needed?)
The Authors present a description of a new acleistorhinid from the early Permian of Oklahoma. The description is well prepared, and the figures are, overall, good. I have some (mostly minor) comments attached in the annotated PDF. Most notably, the formal establishment of the new taxon lacks some clearly stated information, such as the etymology of the generic and specific name, explicit establishment of the holotype (only one specimen is described but its number and the word „holotype” never appear together), information on the type locality and horizon, etc., which are typically included in the Systematic Paleontology section. Moreover, the Authors tend to use constructions like “this specimen”, “current specimen”, and “this species” much more frequently than refer to the specimen by number and to the species by its name – that, in some cases, creates some ambiguity, when used in comparisons. The Authors make a good comparative work but some more comparisons to Feeserpeton oklahomensis and, in particular, Karutia fortunata would be welcome; I know that the material of the latter is scarce but still something can be observed based on that. I would also strongly suggest including photographs of the specimen alongside the 3D renders – while the segmented bones are informative, some information about the preservation and taphonomy can be easier to infer from photographic evidence. Finally, I could not find any reference to the data (CT files and segmented 3D models) being uploaded to Morphosource, as required by the PeerJ Data and Material Sharing policy.
The study follows a standard design for material description in vertebrate paleontology.
I have no issues with the validity of the work. A discussion bit referring to the possible ontogenetic and intraspecific variability of acleistorhinids (e.g., regarding the morphology of the dentition, cranial tuberosities, etc.) in light of their curiously high diversity at Richards Spur could possibly further strenghten the establishment of yet another taxon, but this is more of an interesting thread rather than something necessary to validate the current interpretations.
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.