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.
Dear authors,
Many thanks for your revised manuscript.
I hope you continue to use PeerJ as your publication venue in the future.
# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Andrew Farke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #
Dear authors,
I have accepted the reviewers' recommendation of 'minor revisions'.
I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
This manuscript is well thought out, and written well aside from a few small typos. It was easy to read, clear and concise. Within my attached review I made comments with regards to English and grammar when needed. One suggestion I have for the authors is to state where and when the specimen is from in the abstract. It is not very clear and would help in future literature searches.
The literature references were appropriate and well researched. I recommend the authors reviewing Ehret and Harrell, 2018 (which was just published) and have added a few other suggested papers, but they are not necessary per se. The figures are done well and are consistent with the content of the manuscript.
Artist's reconstruction of the potential event, while somewhat fantastical, is wonderful. The author's fully admit that artistic license was taken.
This original manuscript reviews the predation of a pterosaur which is preserved in a specimen from Kansas. The specimen is mentioned on the Oceans of Kansas website, and has been cited in other research papers but it has not been formally researched and described. Due to the fragile nature of pterosaur bones, preservation is not common, in particular specimens with evidence of predation. The authors do a good job describing the specimen and discussing how it came to be. The specimen is likely a composite, however, abundant evidence and citations are given to demonstrate that the vertebrae and shark tooth are a truly associated specimen. In my attached review, I suggest that the authors further investigate the orientation of the shark tooth in the specimen. Thinking about the orientation of the tooth while it was in the shark's mouth, and the mechanics of how the event likely occurred, it lends more support to the authors' conclusions. I also suggest the authors familiarize themselves more with the common terminology of shark teeth. Portions of the description were somewhat confusing.
With the few numbers of pterosaur bones present with predation/scavenging marks, this research is an important contribution to the field.
The authors describe the specimen in full and are conservative with their hypothesis. Their conclusions are well founded and researched.
See other comments in marked up manuscript. Aside from a few suggestions regarding references and relating tooth orientation to feeding/scavenging event, I am pleased with this report.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Meets standards.
They describe the specimen, compare it to similar specimens, etc. Interpret the results.
Meets standards.
All seems valid, Cretoxyrhina bit on Pteranodon, and why wouldn't it. The only questionable thing is the acrobatic shark snatching the pterosaur out of the air, which the authors do not suggest was normal feeding mode of Cretoxyrhina.
See that attached pdf for more detailed 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.