Review History

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.

View examples of open peer review.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 15th, 2018 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 30th, 2018.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 12th, 2018 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 14th, 2018.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Oct 14, 2018 · Academic Editor


Thank you for your close attention to the comments from the reviewers.

# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Laura Wilson, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Sep 30, 2018 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The comments from the reviewers are comparatively minor, and hopefully should be easy to incorporate. Reviewer 1's notes on the issue of niche partitioning is perhaps the most critical--this should be addressed in your revised manuscript.


Basic reporting

Overall the paper is well written, the identifications of the two species appear to be correct, the descriptions are good if perhaps a little too detailed, and the specimen images and tables are adequate. There are a few grammatical and formatting errors.

Experimental design

The weakest part of the paper is the paleoecology section that runs from the bottom of page 26 to the top part of page 28. The abstract states that “The preservation of these two species from GFS suggests tayassuid niche partitioning in this ancient forested ecosystem.” The authors do not provide any direct evidence of niche partitioning between the two GFS peccaries (e.g., microwear or stable C isotope analysis of paleodiet; biomechanical analysis of jaw mechanics, etc.). Basically, it is just the two species are both present at the site, therefore niche partitioning. Furthermore, the authors have not presented evidence that the two species actually co-occur in the same beds or levels from the GFS, meaning that they might not be truly sympatric in the ecological sense. Recent papers by Yann and DeSantis (2014) and Bedham et al. (2018) that do these types of studies are not cited. I would recommend that this section either be enhanced by further analysis of the paleoecology of the two species at the GFS and expand this section, or delete it altogether.

Validity of the findings

other than the point made in #2, the findings and and analyses are valid

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

In the Introduction section the abbreviated GFS should be placed first as Gray Fossil Site, then subsequently as GFS.

In Figure 1, if you choose to follow the taxonomy suggested by Parisi Dutra 2017, use Protherohyus instead of Catagonus.

At line 355, change "peg like" to "pig-like"

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

no 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.