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.
The authors addressed the minor comments of the reviewers, and the paper can now be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Kenneth De Baets, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The reviewers highlighted aspects that the authors must consider to improve the paper.
[# 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 #]
Well written, logical, most pertinent references are cited. See additional comments below.
Logical and thorough.
All findings are substantiated by the data and analyses reported.
This is a very significant (and quite thorough) paper on an important topic—the ecology, biogeography, and prehistory of a relatively large bodied, extinct North America canid otherwise largely known only from California (Rancho la Brea). It is precisely the sort of synthesis and cutting-edge analyses that should be growing in number if we ever hope to understand the fauna of the late Pleistocene, their community structure & ecology, etc., and why more than three dozen of those taxa became extinct at approximately that time. In short, this paper most emphatically should be published. It exemplifies much that is good about close and careful study of the paleozoological record.
Having said the preceding, there are a few things requiring attention prior to final acceptance and publication. These are for the most part minor editorial things; none are onerous or fatal to the reasoning or analyses, all of which are logical and quite relevant to the questions asked of the faunal remains. I list these in order, with reference to the line number. Many of the “delete” and “rewrite” suggestions are optional and offered simply for the authors’ consideration to make for more efficient and clearer wording.
ABSTRACT:
Line 3-4: delete “as well”
Line 7: delete “of the”
Line 10: rewrite as “midcontinent totals”
Line 12: I suspect I know what “thinly dispersed” means, but might there be a more explicit way to say this?
TEXT:
Line 2: Not sure what “foundational evidence” means, tho this becomes clear on lines 3 and 4. Consider revising.
Line 22-23: suggest rewriting as: “Three iconic taxa illustrate the situation with large carnivores is more acute.” But I note while two of the three are mentioned quickly (line 25 & 25-26) the third taxon is not mentioned until line 28, and by then I had darn near forgotten there were three taxa.
Line 35: “these large carnivores”. By this time I am unsure of who “these” refers to.
Line 53: perhaps replace “unknown” with “not reported”
Line 67: “The fossil were (originally? By whom? By you guys?) diagnosed…”
Line 90: rewrite as “radiocarbon ages”
Line 107: I suggest including parenthetically(?) the latitude/longitude coordinates. These are easily determined (if memory serves) on the USGS web site. The township/range system is rather archaic, so perhaps it is unnecessary? (and you do not include which Meridian is used for the listed township coordinates)
Line 115–116: this info on C14 calibration is redundant with lines 87–90, so unnecessary to repeat this here
Line 118: rewrite as “result indicates”
Line 140: replace “Around” with “After”, and rewrite “as the region began”
Line 142: should “for age of Peoria Loess” be italicized?
Line 144: delete “current”
Line 147: delete “probably” (because you already said “Although largely conjectural”
Line 151: add latitude and longitude
Line 179: rewrite as “Whereas glacial ice”
Line 193-194: add township (perhaps) and include latitude and longitude
Line 201: I had to look up “adit”, so consider replacing with more common (everyday) wording
Line 223: “4.26 m debris cone”. Is this the height of the debris cone, or its basal circumference?
Line 230: delete “of the”
Line 244-245: I do not think Brain 1981 on African porcupine is the best reference for a North American E. dorsatum. There are perhaps 15-20 articles on African & Indian porcupine gnawing of bones but relatively little literature on E. dorsatum (see references in Supplemental Table in Lyman [2018; references are listed at the end of this review]). With respect to North American porcupine gnawing damage to bones, the most info I am aware of is Pokines (2014, 2022; there is a photo of North American porcupine gnawing damage in Pokines 2022:339; perhaps he discusses remains from a modern den).
Line 255: delete “of the”
Line 257: rewrite as “3.3, and suggest collagen”
Line 316: “it” refers to “These specimens” and thus is a bit unclear as these specimens is plural and “it” implies one.
Line 353: replace “skin” with “coating”
Line 372: rewrite as “remains of other taxa”
Line 375: I am very curious as to how “Lynx rufus” skeletal remains were distinguished from Lynx canadensis; few paleozoologists I know readily identify Lynx specimens as to species.
Line 380-381: move “from Peccary Cave” to after “(UA-2805)”
Line 382: delete “analytical” as it is redundant with “usable”
Line 416: replace “them” with “canid dens”. Literature on what to expect in North American carnivore dens is found in Pokines (2014, 2022) and see also Stiner’s (1994:426) index entry for “carnivore denning behavior and associated infant mortality”; Stiner will likely have some references to primary literature on this.
Line 450-452: see Miller (2011, 2012) for North American examples of fidelity of bones on the landscape for the extant fauna (references are listed at the end of this review)
Line 467: replace “it” with “the species”
Line 521: it is not “obviously” to me! Latitude and longitude of Blue Mounds and Galena??
Line 549: “his” is this Wyman? If so, say so.
Line 604: I believe there should be a period after (MIS 2)
Line 606: replace “like” with “such as”. (“like” implies it is not Florida)
Line 643: replace the second “potential” with “these”, and rewrite “on the landscape contemporary with”
Line 644: delete “would” and consider replacing “would seem to be” with “are”
Line 689: delete “only”
Line 701: rewrite as “was the main prey.”
Line 705-708: now THIS is a nifty idea. Very cool.
•Lyman, R. Lee. 2018. Actualistic Neotaphonomic Research on Bone Modifying Animal Species: An Analysis of the Literature. Palaios 33:542–554.
•Miller, Joshua H. 2011. Ghosts of Yellowstone: Multi-Decadal Histories of Wildlife Populations Captured by Bones on a Modern Landscape. PlosOne 6(3): e18057.
•Miller, Joshua H. 2012. Spatial Fidelity of Skeletal Remains: Elk Wintering and Calving Grounds Revealed by Bones on the Yellowstone Landscape. Ecology 93(11):2472–2482.
•Pokines, James T. 2014. Faunal Dispersal, Reconcentration, and Gnawing Damage to Bone in Terrestrial Environments. In Manual of Forensic Taphonomy, edited by James T. Pokines and Steven A. Symes, pp. 201–248. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
•Pokines, James T. 2022. Faunal Dispersal, Reconcentration, and Gnawing Damage to Bone in Terrestrial Environments. In Manual of Forensic Taphonomy, second edition, edited by James T. Pokines, Ericka N. L’Abbé, and Steven A. Symes, pp. 295–359. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
•Stiner, Mary C. 1994. Honor Among Thieves: A Zooarchaeological Study of Neandertal Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
see section 4
see section 4
see section 4
This is a good paper that deserves publication, after needed revisions. It provides new paleontological records of dire wolf, extensive osteometric data, and a welcome update on the paleontological record of this taxon. I am not familiar with PeerJ and will leave to the editor to judge whether this study meets the expectations of the journal.
One issue I have is of structure. The manuscript currently presents few results (which is ok), and the results section includes discussion of the results (Remarks, line 396+); while some results are presented in the background section (e.g., radiocarbon date of the specimens). It would be a lot less confusing for the reader if the sections of the paper were clearly organized in the classic introduction-background-methods-results-discussion framework. I do acknowledge however, that the structure chosen by the authors may in part reflect a tradition of reporting of paleontological specimens. But in some ways, it almost reads like three separate articles (localities, specimens, and “discussion”) put end to end, and some restructuring and making things consistent would be beneficial.
Although the isotope results are featured in the abstract, they are not clearly reported in the paper.
Beyond this, I have a few more minor comments/suggestions listed below, by line.
line 14: for Beringia, reference the mastodon work by Zazula et al. 2014 in PNAS, and the mammoth work by Guthrie 2004 and 2006 in Nature
line 18: for Beringia, I would suggest adding at minimum references to Shapiro et al 2004 in Science, Guthrie (see above), Heintzman et al. 2017 ELife, and Campos et al. 2010 PNAS. In general, I am not convinced Beringia (as phrased here) is a valid source of comparison, since it was not biologically part of North America for the bulk of the Upper Pleistocene and has so many more records available.
line 21: typo: cervalces
A general comment is about inconsistency, throughout the paper, of use of Genus species, G. species, and Genus when discussing various taxa. I suggest choosing one format and applying it consistently.
27: Broughton and Weitzel 2018 Nature Communications may be relevant in this passage
54: it is interesting that the authors emphasize Beringian wolf as distinct from grey wolf. They may want to explain why they do so.
62: maybe remind the readers which fossils you are referring to
67: why the improbability?
78: typo “researchers”
87: suggest indicating the methods of collagen extraction, especially relevant for isotope.
91-101: if this is described in the methods, then the relevant data should be presented in the results rather than the discussion?
118: typo: indicates. This paragraph in general is quite verbose for simply reporting a radiocarbon date.
124: uppercase Late Pleistocene if talking of the geological period
128: clarify if you think this specimen was in primary or secondary context, and why.
131: in general I would recommend against using, here and before, this argument construction (we lack evidence, however we have this evidence).
140: The chronological reconstruction of biomes and changes is perhaps presented in a somewhat too precise way. I imagine there is a lot more uncertainty (both chronological and ecological) in the original publication.
143: I would strongly suggest rewording this statement. Neither fossil nor biome reconstruction can reasonably be attributed to a 500 year period, that far in the past.
147: please provide evidence as to why cervalces and bootherium are the best candidates.
174: recommend avoiding quoting from other publications
178 the meaning of this sentence is unclear, there may be a missing word
240: how is it excellent?
263: this sentence makes it read as if all shrubs and forbs belong to Artemisia
349: deuterocone
372 missing word, remains of other taxa
401 Dall sheep
464 why uppercase Coast and lowercase coast?
534-592 this section is somewhat verbose and winding, some rephrasing could help
.
.
.
Attached.
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.