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,
Thank you for your careful consideration of reviewer comments in the previous version. I now find that this manuscript is acceptable for publication in PeerJ. It will add to the growing understanding of temnospondyl ecology and be generally useful to paleobiologists interested in using FEA/histology for ecological reconstructions.
Below are several additional grammatical issues that should be made prior to publication. Ensure that they are corrected prior to the proof process.
Line 89: single bones
Line 211: ‘most common’ rather than commonest
Line 263: ‘the most widely variable factor is the’
Line 282: accidental space between 89 and %?
Line 311: Not sure what osteoidand is. I couldn’t find it on google.
Line 411: space between ‘between5’
Line 459: ‘such suture types combined with a large number of…’
Figure 3: gypsum rather than gypsium
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ! Please reach out if you have any questions.
Best,
Brandon P. Hedrick, Ph.D.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Kenneth De Baets, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ. Based on comments from two reviewers and my own reading of the manuscript, I recommend minor revisions. I really thought that table 1 and figure 7 in particular were wonderfully done summary figures.
The vast majority of these revisions are English language based. I read through the manuscript through line 203 for grammar and made comments correcting the language, but the manuscript really needs a fluent English speaker who can change things on the draft directly using tracked changes. Fixing only the changes below will not be sufficient.
As noted by reviewers, please be consistent with your terms. There is a lot of variability in term use throughout the manuscript.
Additionally, as noted by reviewers and by my comments below, there are not enough citations in the manuscript putting the manuscript in the context of previous work.
Although it was not suggested by reviewers, I would like you to add more to both the introduction and discussion on the utility of histology for inferring biting mechanics in comparison with FEA. I think that would broaden the paper and make it interesting to a larger group of readers.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions.
Best,
Brandon P. Hedrick Ph.D.
----------
Line 32–33: Change to: ‘may be due to local differences in biomechanics during feeding’
Line 47: ‘skulls’
Line 47: ‘positioning’
Line 51: ‘is now the best known temnospondyli with studies on its osteology…’
Line 55: ‘and functional biomechanics’
Line 57: ‘characteristics of long bones (femora (citation) and humeri (citation), ribs, and vertebrae’
Line 61: ‘The first description was..’
Line 65: ‘…with a well-differentiated…’
Line 67: ‘…off a few dermal…’
Line 68: There are grammar issues here, but I’m not sure what the authors are aiming for
Line 69: ‘Preliminary’ spelling
Line 70: ‘characteristics’
Line 70: ‘were presented’
Line 72: ‘granted new insights into the knowledge’
Line 84–87: There are some grammar issues here as well
Line 87: ‘Thus, the presentation of detailed histological characteristics of’
Line 88: ‘may allow for’
Line 91: What do you mean by ‘usual’?
Line 91–92: There are grammar issues, but as this reads, you say that detailed histologic investigations have not been done in any taxon before, but that is certainly not true. I think you mean serial sections and I think you just mean within Metoposaurus? Reword
Line 93: first time should not be hyphenated
Line 95: ‘and 3)’
Line 96: ‘based on a histological framework’
Line 117: ‘between the two specimens’
Line 122: ‘and with a gypsum filter’
Line 122: ‘and were supplemented with a scanning’
Line 125: ‘characteristics’
Line 126: ‘were assessed and compared based’
Line 127: “Preliminary interpretations of biomechanical functions for bones examined histologically were based on Konietzko-Meier et al. (2018).”
Line 129: ‘Due to the large number of thin sections and…’
Line 140: Change ‘analogically’ to ‘conversely’
Line 148: ‘articular’ spelling
Line 143–149: Is there a citation for this software that can be included?
Line 152: ‘is longitudinally tubular in shape and structure’
Line 154: ‘of the articular’
Line 160: ‘is the articular bone, which undergoes endochondral…’
Line 164: ‘The external cortex…’
Line 165: ‘with a thickness of 2 mm’
Line 166: ‘in the external cortex’
Line 166: delete ‘structures’
Line 167: ‘annuli in both the sculptural ridges’ (delete the commas)
Line 169: ‘the dentary and the angular’
Line 169–170: ‘Sharpey’s fibers are numerous, well mineralised and densely packed along the whole…’
Line 172: ‘parts of the dentary’
Line 174: ‘bones on the lingual’
Line 176: ‘The external cortex is’
Line 176: ‘A high number..’
Line 177: ‘in the dentary’
Line 177: ‘On the labial side’
Line 178: ‘avascular on the postsplenial’
Line 178: ‘of an older generation’
Line 178: What do you mean by the ridges here? I’m not clear.
Line 181: ‘The external cortex…’
Line 181–182: What do you mean here?
Line 182: ‘The vascular network…’
Line 187: ‘of the angular’
Line 187: ‘in the splenial and’
Line 189: ‘the postsplenial’
Line 190: What do you mean by ‘the most various is the presence’? Grammar
Line 193: Do you mean distal by ‘further’?
Line 194: ‘pattern is present in the prearticular…’
Line 195: Do you mean 3,000 for an American journal?
Line 196: ‘The internal cortex’
Line 198: Start a new sentence. “Small secondary…’
Line 201: ‘mark’
Line 233: ‘spongy bone’
Line 257: ‘patterns’
Line 260: Do you mean highly vascularized zones? All zones are vascularized except cartilage
Line 321: Need citations on sharpeys fibers being used to assess loading regimes
Line 329–331: Add citations on bone plasticity
Line 335: What kind of properties?
Line 378: I think it would be beneficial here and in the introduction to discuss the advantages of histology to finite element analysis for understanding biomechanical loading regimes. Maybe add 3-4 sentences here and in the intro.
Line 384: ‘but until now’
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
I found some of the sentences a bit confusing, and have tried to modify /rephrase a few of them. As I am not an English-speaking person, I request the manuscript be thoroughly checked for correct English.
Many terminologies have been used throughout the manuscript, which sometime deviate from the meaning given in standard books and/or are new, at least to me. I would prefer that in the methodology part, if the definitions with proper referencing may be given, so that it becomes easier for the reader to understand. These terms are as follows:
(i) growth marks structure
(ii) Interwoven structural fibres
(iii) LAG and resting lines
No comment
The submitted manuscript provides new information on mandibular histology of Metoposaurus and its implications. Following are one or two comment(s) for further clarity of the manuscript:
(a). The abstract should contain only the salient findings and their implications. It is not necessary to give the reason for examining the two mandibles.
(b). Font size of the scale bars are too small in Figures 3-5. Please keep a uniform font size for the labels and scale bars of figures 3-6. I would also prefer that the two types of Sharpey’s fibres be shown by different types of arrows.
I have attached an annotated MS, with more specific comments. Overall, the manuscript is well written with adequate number of figures, imparting new ideas on the biomenchanical constraints of Metoposaurus mandible, and should be published after minor revision.
The manuscript looks all well written, stuctured and illustrated. Relevant literature is sufficiently covered.
Has been done to standard procedures of palaeoosteohistology. The graphic documentation and description look well and detailed and should make the results well reproducable.
The study would have profited from the inclusion of at least one further reference taxon to put the results for the Polish Metoposaurus in context of other groups taxa. With only one taxon thoroughly studied, the results are difficult to interpret and it is difficult to infer sth. relevant and for a larger group of readers (especially when other aspects of the same taxon have been studied in detail, again without consideration of a larger reference group).
I would recommend that the authors try to put the results of their detailed documentation somewhat better in the context of previous studies on other tetrapod taxa in the manuscript's discussion section.
(Given that it is PeerJ policy to publish any results/novel data that fill a gap/are relevant for a certain research question, this recommendation and my feeling that the manuscript could be made less "boring" does arguably play no role for its acceptance.)
I would agree with the finding of this study that it confirms earlier assumptions regarding Metoposaurus development, functional morphology and ecology based on other data (or at least is not in conflict with them).
In one place the authors distinguish between resting lines and lines of arrested growth in addition to bone growth marks - what is the difference beween LAGs and resting lines... please add a citation for that.
In the figure captures for the micrographs, it should be added whether specimen photos have been taken under cross-polarized light - sometimes it is not mentioned.
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.