To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).
Congratulations for this work.
Your manuscript still needs to be improved according to the referee's remaining minor suggestions (also see the annotated PDF from Reviewer 2).
English : The overall english is correct. Line 172, the sentence needs to be edited to make sense.
Intro & background : the overall flow of the introduction and background have been improved and help to grasp the topic
Figures : All the figures are of good quality. Some of the light microscopy could have a whiter background, but it's a detail.
Valuable added information in the number of specimen used.
The discussion is much clearer and robust, the comparison to mammals is better suggested.
The paper meets it's descriptive goal.
Figure legends should be self-sufficient so species and coloration (at least) should be added.
Some structures are annotated in legends but not visible on corresponding pictures.
Incubation conditions should be added as development speed is dependant on temperature, hygrometry ... Resuts and conclusions are linked to these conditions
Despite some lacking informations, the article is better at 1st revision step (particularly introduction).
Please consider all the suggestions in the revised manuscript.
Please also note that both reviewers provided helpful annotated documents.
English throughout the paper is acceptable, with some corrections to make or phrasing to change (first paragraph of introduction, first paragraph of Materials and Methods, first, second and third paragraphs of Light microscopy, second, sixth and seventh paragraphs of discussion)
Intro & background :
Overall the introduction correct, but the end of the introduction ends abruptly without introducing the following material.
Common structure is used and fits the content. Sections are clear.
Here is the main issue of this manuscript. Figures are not eligible for publishing as they were presented to us. Compression problems or during writing have made all of the figures (at least the light microscopy ones) useless. Labels and scale bars are not discernable.
The legends would gain from commenting the figures presented.
Raw data :
No high quality pictures were available to download, no additional content.
This manuscript fits the scope of PeerJ concerning research and biology/veterinary sciences.
The data presented here aims to fill a gap concerning reptile ontology.
I suggest additional references:
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0264.2011.01101.x
- PMID: 9929611
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4520.2009.00233.x (Development of olfactory epithelium in the human fetus: scanning electron microscopic observations. Kimura et al. 2009)
- doi: 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2014.11.010 (Neural crest and placode contributions to olfactory development, Suzuki, Osumi, 2015)
- doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0264.2008.00847.x (Scanning electron microscopical study of the lingual epithelium of green iguana (Iguana iguana), Abatte et al. 2008)
Results, rationale :
The experiment covers a large part of ontogenesis. One hatched specimen might have given a reference point.
Development descriptions include general anatomy and type of epithelium. A deeper and more specific cell population description would help characterize the tissue (gobelet cells?)
Result description is structured and clear
“We have chosen to believe that” should not be mentioned as such in a scientific paper.
A conclusion on the anatomical location of the olfactory portion of the epithelium is based only on the general analogy to mammal epithelium and lacks observation of proof.
Robust data :
A total number of animals used lacks, showing number of samples.
Despite a bad quality of figures, it seems the samples are well stained and of technical quality.
The manuscript shows moderation in its conclusion and rejoins the original question.
For the reasons mentioned above, I believe this manuscript deserves revision, in particular its figures, the phrasing of the overall paper, and the precocious comparison regarding mammalian analogy.
- The authors should develop (explain clearly) the originality of this article in comparison with previous studies and the interest of this knowledge, Indeed authors point out that it was described by Slaby in 1982
-It could be interesting to give a quick remaining (in the introduction) on the importance of olfactory system (and the vomeronasal organ) in reptiles/lezards, topography, physiology, vascularisation, innervation etc..
- Figure legend should be self-sufficient, so add more details on the species, coloration etc. For a better understanding, please highlight (arrow, arrow head…) the position of visible structures (vomeronasal organ, primary choana, adjacent structures …)
- Figure 8 was not available in high resolution
- Figures 3 and 4 ; 6 and 7 ; 8 and 9 could be merged to permit easier comparisons
- It might be interesting to explain the reasons for beginning at day 67 and every 4 days. Please explain if samples were made before day 67 and nasal structures were not yet visible.
- Observations could be stronger with a statistical justification. How many samples/embryos? What was the statistical analyses to investigate variation between samples and incubation duration ?
The article is well illustrated and valuable. This one could be accepted for publication under minor corrections
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.