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 addressing the final suggestions including clarifying the way you performed the measurements as well stating more explicitly the difficulty in assigning tracks to their producers.
The only thing i would like to still add is to explicitly mention which type of measurements (calliper versus ImageJ) were kept and used (in text as well as caption to Table S1), but I feel this can be done during the proofing phase.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Virginia Abdala, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
Thank you for addressing our suggestions. They changes including adding measurements make the manuscript of even broader relevance and easier to follow. The manuscript is close to acceptance, please address the minor changes requested by reviewer 1 which includes clarifying the different interpretations concerning the potential producer of Dimetropus as well as the conditions under which the measurements were made. I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.
Looks very good now, thank you. Just two more minor points (line numbers refer to the "tracked changes" document):
* l. 694 onwards – You introduce Dimetropus as possible evidence for herbivorous synapsids, and then you use the same ichnotaxon as evidence for carnivorous synapsids. That does not fit together.
* l. 277. "Measurements were obtained using a digital calliper and ImageJ" – A bit more information could be helpful here. When did you measure the real specimens, and when did you measure digitally, and why? Please clarify if the digital measurements (ImageJ) were made on photographs or maps derived from 3D models, and how the photographs were made (there might be parallax issues).
Jens N. Lallensack
see above
see above
see above
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have sufficiently addressed/incorporated all the suggestions provided in my previous review. The article should now be 'Accepted' for publication. I congratulate the authors for their research work.
You provide a comprehensive and long-overdue study and revision of Pennsylvanian tetrapod tracks from the Semily Formation of the Krkonoše Piedmont Basin. I would love to see this published, but there are some crucial points which need to be addressed before publication:
Terminology: please make sure you use terminology correctly and consistently (overstepping versus overprinting: compare reviewer 1; terms like concave epirelief and convex hyporelief: compare reviewer 2; isp. versus isp. indet: compare reviewer 3).
Descriptions: The systematic Palaeoichnology needs some additional work (compare reviewers 1-3). The presentations of diagnostic features need to be clearer (compare reviewer 1 and 2) as well as the use of terminology (see also previous comment).
Measurements: It would be appropriate to add actual (relative) measurements other than size when you speak of wider, longer, longer, etc. (see annotated pdf).
Seymouriamorpha as trackmakers: please make sure to introduce respective literature to argue for Seymouriamorpha as trackmakers for Amhisauropus and clearly the associated uncertainty (compare reviewer 1)
Language and formatting issues: beyond some potential issues with terminology, there are various issues with language and formatting (see reviewers 1-3). Please address suggestions made by reviewers and myself. These are multiple references where full bibliographic details are missing from reference list (see annotated pdf). Also clarify the use of the “so-called Ploučnice Horizon”. Please make sure the reference list is complete and have a colleague fluent in English read the revised version before resubmitting (compare also reviewer 2).
Please address these as well as other points raised by the reviewers and myself including those listed in annotated pdfs.
I look forward to receive the revised manuscript.
Dear authors,
this is a solid and sound manuscript, and I do not see any major issues.
l. 20: I would say that trace fossils are "physical" as well. I suggest to use the established term "body fossil" instead, as you do elsewhere in the manuscript.
l. 30: "demonstrating" instead of "suggesting"? (Grammar does not work in the current sentence, I believe)
l. 274: You state that the tracks "show all the diagnostic features of Amphisauropus". Please add respective references; on which published diagnosis did you base the assignment?
In several places: "wider than longer" should be "wider than long"
l. 330: "in contract with" – I assume this should be "in contrast with"?
When you say "overstepping", do you in fact refer to the condition in which the pes is placed anterior to the manus (the common usage of the term in ichnological literature) – or do you possibly mean "overprinting" (the pes overlaps the manus) instead? See https://doi.org/10.26879/1389.
l. 474: The mention of Seymouriamorpha comes a bit out of the blue, as you did not introduce them as plausible trackmakers for Amphisauropus. At the very least, the respective literature that argues for Seymoriamorpha as trackmakers should be cited here. In addition, I would add some ambiguity to the text; we can never be sure that all Amphisauropus tracks are indeed seymouriamorph tracks.
l. 608–613: The conclusion that there was a taphonomic bias is prudent and uncontroversial, but I do not understand the logic used to arrive at that conclusion. Also, you seem to equate fossil abundance with diversity, but these are different things (we can have high adundance but low diversity). You also write "decrease in biodiversity", but it would have been an increase followed by a decrease, no? I think the paragraph needs re-writing for clarity.
Jens N. Lallensack
not applicable
see above
none
The manuscript is written in generally clear English and follows a professional structure. However, several sentences are difficult to follow due to grammar, word choice, or overly complex phrasing. For example, some passages would benefit from additional commas or restructuring to read more smoothly. I suggest a careful language review, ideally with the help of a fluent colleague or professional editing service, to ensure international readability.
Figures and tables are appropriate and relevant. That said, in some places (e.g., Fig. 8 insets E and F), the distinction between taxa could be presented more clearly. Consider visually separating these insets (e.g., using black boxes) and noting explicitly in the caption that their designation is undetermined and they have their own descriptive section.
The introduction and background provide useful context, but could be expanded in places. For example, when introducing the “so-called Ploučnice Horizon,” the phrase is ambiguous—are you questioning the validity of the horizon, or just acknowledging inconsistent usage? Clarification would improve readability.
Overall, the manuscript is self-contained and provides sufficient background, but polishing the writing will make the arguments more precise and accessible.
The research question is clearly defined and meaningful: a comprehensive description and revision of Pennsylvanian tetrapod tracks from the Semily Formation. The study contributes to filling a recognized knowledge gap in the ichnological record of the Krkonoše Piedmont Basin.
Methods are generally described in adequate detail, but a few points require clarification. For example, in the Materials & Methods section, the text refers to “Figs. 9A–7B,” which appears to be an error (perhaps “9A and 7B” was intended). Also, when describing the Dimetropus material, you note that manus are “preserved only laterally”—please clarify whether you mean only visible in lateral view, or that only the lateral digits were preserved.
Collection history is well documented, and efforts to reconcile historical and newly discovered specimens are commendable. The study design is appropriate for the aims of the paper.
The conclusions are consistent with the data presented and are well linked to the research question. In particular, the identification of Amphisauropus tracks from the Gzhelian represents a significant contribution to the ichnological record. Similarly, the documentation of Ichniotherium cottae and Limnopus expands knowledge of Pennsylvanian ichnoassemblages in Central Europe.
That said, in several descriptive passages the presentation of diagnostic features could be clearer. For instance, in the Ichniotherium cottae section, multiple traits are listed in a single long sentence, making it difficult to parse. Breaking this into a list or adding commas would improve readability. Additionally, when noting features such as “well visible transverse segmentation,” expand briefly on why this is important for diagnosis.
For Batrachichnus, the description of pes morphologies as “pentadactyl to digitigrade” is confusing. Do you mean to indicate a morphological range, or is this a typographical error (should it be “pentadactyl and digitigrade”)? Clarifying this will avoid misinterpretation.
The figures and specimen descriptions substantiate the taxonomic assignments. Data appear robust, and interpretations are reasonable.
Strengths:
- Comprehensive revision of both historical and newly collected material, making this the most detailed account of Pennsylvanian tetrapod tracks from Czechia to date.
- Integration of ichnological data with stratigraphic and palaeoenvironmental context is strong.
- Figures are generally clear and well labeled, with abundant supporting data.
Areas for improvement:
- Language and readability – Several sections need grammatical refinement and clarification of meaning.
- Figures and captions – Ensure that insets and specimen distinctions are clearly marked (e.g., Fig. 8E–F).
- Terminology consistency – Ensure consistent use of terms like “concave epirelief” and “convex hyporelief.”
- Descriptive clarity – Break down long, dense descriptive sentences into shorter, more digestible ones, and be explicit about why certain features are taxonomically significant.
- Ambiguities – Clarify unclear phrases such as “so-called Ploučnice Horizon” and correct small numbering or figure reference errors.
No comment
No comment
No comment
In the manuscript titled “A highly diverse Pennsylvanian tetrapod ichnoassemblage from the Semily Formation (Krkonoše Piedmont Basin, Czechia)” (ID: 122838), the authors provide a detailed analysis of the observed tetrapod footprints within the Carboniferous (Late Pennsylvanian) Semily Formation at different locations (Kyje-Ploužnice and Štikov roadcut) in two separate study areas within the Krkonoše Piedmont Basin (Czech Republic). The authors have identified the observed tetrapod footprints as belonging to the following six ichnogenera: Amphisauropus, Batrachichnus, Dimetropus, Dromopus, Ichniotherium, and Limnopus and have provided illustrations and descriptions for the observed ichnofossils. Additionally, the authors have provided the palaeoecological reconstruction for the Ploužnice Palaeolake based on their field observations and recorded geological & palaeontological evidence. The authors also provided a palaeodiversity (in a stratigraphic context) for the tetrapod ichnofossils and associated biota in this article based on the records from the ‘Ploužnice Horizon’, Semily Formation, Krkonoše Piedmont Basin, Czech Republic.
Overall, the article is well-constructed, including the historical context of the ichnofossil findings, and provides apt descriptions and terminologies for the observed tetrapod tracks. All the figures do provide detailed information and are of good quality. The article deserves publication and should be considered for the same after a ‘Moderate Revision’.
Suggested revisions:
1. Line nos 22-27: Rephrase to provide the correct information. A diverse ichnofossil assemblage representing six ichnogenera Amphisauropus, Batrachichnus, Dimetropus, Dromopus, Ichniotherium, and Limnopus, including four named and two unnamed species… Also, see comments for the section ‘Systematic Palaeoichnology’.
2. Consider removing the titles for the sub-sections ‘Materials’ and ‘Anatomical terminology and measurements’. The information provided within these sub-sections should be retained under the section ‘Material and Methods’.
3. My main concern pertains to the section ‘Systematic Palaeoichnology’. “Amphisauropus isp.” should be “Amphisauropus isp. indet.” considering that species has not been determined. Kindly incorporate this suggestion throughout the text (including in the section ‘Conclusions’) and for all the indeterminate species. Within the text, you may opt to write only the generic name, e.g., Dimetropus, Amphisauropus, Limnopus. Additionally, the subsection ‘Discussion’ should be renamed as ‘Remarks’ throughout the section ‘Systematic Palaeoichnology’. Further, for the taxa “Amphisauropus isp. indet.”, “Limnopus isp. indet.” and “Dimetropus isp. indet.”, the subsection ‘Remarks’ should be expanded to provide some comparative taxonomical features (a few lines) with previously known (named and unnamed) species of the genera Amphisauropus, Limnopus, and Dimetropus. In case the authors are keen to erect new species for these two different genera, then obviously detailed comparisons are required within the ‘Remarks’ sub-section, apart from a new sub-section ‘Diagnosis’. Supplementary Data “Material SI” should be invoked as “File S1”, correct throughout the text. Follow the Journal’s guidelines in this regard.
4. Figure 1: I suggest providing apt labels for the two study areas (red boxes) as “Study Area I or Trek C” and “Study Area II or Trek D” and accordingly update the information in the text.
5. Figure 2: The “Kyje-Ploužnice railway cut” site/location is many times mentioned as “Kyje railcut” in the text. Maintain consistency throughout the text. I suggest that for better readability, labels should be provided for “Trek C” and “Trek D”, rather than “C” & “D” (in red font) in Figures 2A & 2B, apart from labels & markings (gold stars) for the fossil sites. Additionally, in Figures 2C and 2D, the sites (gold stars) should be labelled. Accordingly, do the needful to maintain consistency throughout the text. Likewise, the caption of Figure 11 mentions two sites: “Kyje” (not Kyje Rail Cut) and “Šatikov” (not Šatikov roadcut). Maintain consistency throughout the text, including the figure captions.
6. Figure 6 caption: Amphisauropus isp. should be Amphisauropus isp. indet. See previous comments.
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.