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.
Thank you for your work on the updates.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Virginia Abdala, a 'PeerJ' Section Editor covering this Section #]
Overall I am happy to recommend minor revisions here. However, I do agree with both referees that at least some explanation of why you have avoided more numerical methods would be good, and ideally some kind of analysis would be ideal.
As noted by the second referee, some more details on the teeth (e.g., shape and symmetry of the denticles on the theropod tooth) and comparisons to faunas that are close in time and space should be included in the revised submission.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
he manuscript is well-written in professional English and presents a clear and unambiguous narrative. It provides sufficient background on the Jiufotang Formation, placing the findings in the context of the Jehol Biota. However, there are areas where improvement can strengthen the reporting:
Strengths: The article is structured professionally, adhering to expected norms, with an appropriate abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections.
Figures and tables are well-labeled and detailed, providing clear morphological illustrations and measurements.
References include relevant literature on the Jehol Biota and theropod dentition.
To be improved:
Taxonomic Comparisons: Comparisons of the teeth to global and regional taxa are less exhaustive. For example, comparisons to similar theropod teeth (e.g., Metriacanthosauridae and Allosauridae) and sauropod teeth in nearby formations or broader paleogeographic contexts are needed.
Including phylogenetic matrices, such as those from Hendrickx et al. (2023), could add quantitative rigor to the taxonomic conclusions.
Morphological Details: Denticle descriptions are limited to counts, lacking details on their shape, symmetry, and orientation. Enhanced imaging (e.g., high-resolution microscope images) could provide more depth. The mesial carina curvature and lingual offset, which may align with specific theropod groups, warrant further exploration.
Broader Context: The claim that the Jiufotang Formation has limited dinosaur diversity (line 209) is misleading, as numerous species have been documented. Current literature (e.g., Xing et al., 2024) contradicts this statement.
Editorial Notes:
"Mocco" should be corrected to "Mocho" in references.
The manuscript effectively sets the stage for its findings, but integrating broader comparisons, phylogenetic analyses, and detailed morphological imaging would elevate its scientific contribution.
The study constitutes original research within the aims and scope of PeerJ, addressing a relevant paleontological question about the diversity and taxonomy of dinosaur species in the Jiufotang Formation. The research question is well-defined and meaningful, addressing a knowledge gap regarding the presence of theropods and sauropods in the formation.
Methodologies for preparation, measurement, and imaging are clearly described and reproducible.
Specimen housing in a reputable museum ensures accessibility for future research.
Areas for Improvement:
Phylogenetic Analysis: The lack of phylogenetic analysis is a significant limitation. Incorporating tools like cladistics or discriminant analysis could yield more robust taxonomic placements.
The theropod tooth should be analyzed for potential affinities to families with mesial carina curvatures (e.g., Metriacanthosauridae or Allosauridae).
Data Enhancement: Further data, such as enamel thickness variation, crown cross-sectional asymmetry, and detailed wear facet analysis, could strengthen the interpretation of functional morphology and taxonomy.
Conclusion for Experimental Design: The methods are solid but would benefit greatly from phylogenetic analyses and additional morphological studies. The current methodology limits the manuscript’s impact and taxonomic accuracy.
The findings are novel, contributing to an increased understanding of dinosaur diversity in the Jiufotang Formation. The authors provide comprehensive descriptions of the specimens, linking their findings to the broader context of Early Cretaceous dinosaur diversity.
The conclusions are well-stated, with hypotheses tied directly to observed data. However, there are some limitations in their validation:
Robustness of Taxonomic Assignments: Taxonomic assignments, particularly for the theropod tooth, are tentative due to incomplete preservation and the lack of advanced analytical approaches.
The sauropod tooth’s classification would also benefit from phylogenetic scrutiny, particularly when interpreting indices such as the slenderness index (SI).
Conclusion for Validity of Findings: The findings are interesting and valuable but would benefit from further validation through phylogenetic and quantitative methods. Clearer articulation of broader implications would increase their impact.
Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript on isolated dinosaur teeth from the Lower Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation. The manuscript is well presented, clear, easy to follow and well referenced. The figures are likewise generally clear and informative.
I have a few suggestions that may be helpful.
The authors use morphological descriptions and comparisons to assign these isolated teeth to taxa. It may be useful, in the introduction, to mention the work that has been published around the quantitative classification of theropod teeth (tooth based phylogenies and machine learning) and to explain why these approaches were not attempted in this case. Examples would be Hendrickx et al. (2019), Hendrickx et al. (2020), Hendrickx et al. (2024), Wills et al. (2021), Wills et al. (2023) although I admit my bias here coming from this quantitative background and this is just a suggestion.
Line 69: Please add a reference / version number for the ImageJ software used.
Figure 1 caption: There is an additional space in the text which needs removing in the word “the”
“of th e dinosaur teeth at Shangshuaiquan, Lianhe, Longcheng, Chaoyang”
Figure 1 C & D: Is it possible to add a scale to the photographs.
Figure 2 caption: The list of abbreviations does not match those on the actual figure.
Figure 3 caption: The list of abbreviations does not match those on the actual figure.
Tables 1 and 2: Please include abbreviations (where possible) on all measurements so that these match up with Figures 2 and 3.
Table 1 caption and Table 1: I would change the caption (and the table) so that the actual measurements (I assume that this is what is meant by preserved measurements) are NOT asterisked and those measurements that are estimated ARE asterisked rather than the other way around.
Table 2 caption: The caption appears to be truncated “slenderness index (maximum crown h”
no comment
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.