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 your close attention to the reviewer and editorial comments!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Laura Wilson, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Overall, this manuscript is concisely written and its conclusions are well supported by the underlying data. The reviewers and I have identified a few minor areas for revision, which are included in the editorial notes below and the reviews (including marked-up PDFs).
- Please revise the abstract to include specific results. As is, it presents the overall conclusions, but some of the specific data underlying these conclusions in terms of characters, etc., should also be mentioned.
- lines 63-69 -- consider mentioning (briefly) which characters/data were used to support these assignments/reassignments
This is a short note, which corrects the previous identification of an avian femur from the Latre Cretaceous of Antarctica, and for the first time presents a description of the fossil. As such, the manuscript is certainly a worthwile contribution to palaeornithology and I have only a few comments the authors may wish to take into account.
Technical details, such as the approariate use of the references, English grammar, etc. do not need to be improved except for the few minor instances listed below.
The paper follows current standards in palaeontological studies, but I wonder whether there should be a material and method section, in which institutional abbreviations are given and the used terminology is referenced. Certainly, this is not mandatory given the expected briefness of such a section and if it conforms with the journal standards, a material and method section can be omitted.
I full agree with the referal of the fossil to the Vegaviidae and have only a few minor comments the authors may wish to take into account (see below)
While I fully agree with the referral of this fossil to the Vegaviidae, the distal view of the distal end shows some differences to the distal femur of Vegavis in the depth of the patellar sulcus and the shape of the remaining lateral condyle (Fig. 4P, Q). I assume that these are due to the poor preservation of the fossil and it may be worth to add a specific note on this to the next (you already included some similar statements in lines 154ff).
You compare the new fossil with the holotypes of vegavis and Polarornis. What I miss, however, are comaprisons with the Vegavis/Polaronis material listed by Acista Hospitaleche in her paper on the putative gaviiforms from Antarctica. It would at least be necessary to state whether the new femur is also larger than the remains reported in this latter study.
Some minor comments:
- note that in avian terminology of the femur, the directions "cranial/caudal" rather than "dorsal/ventral" are used
- line 105: "is approximately 36" - add "mm" here
- line 152: "Additionally, the round proximoventral ligament scar of Vegavis is positioned near the midline in the new femur ... but is closer to the lateral margin in V. iaai." - as kit is, this sentence makes no sense, since you compare "Vegavis" with "Vegavis iaai". Is the new fossil meant here? In this case, it would be better to give the specimen number.
- caption of Fig. 1: "site" instead of "si te"
- caption of Fig. 3: "tendineus m. tibialis cranialis" - this should probably read "tendon of..."
As a side notes: Personally, I am not fully convinced that it is necessary and appropriate to keep Vegavis and Polarornis as two different taxa on the "genus"-level and I am not sure whether the differences between Vegavis and Polarornis are not the result of the poor preservation of the holotype of P. gregorii (e.g., concerning the absence of the distolateral scar). This question (synonymy of Vegavis and Polarornis) is certainly beyond the scope of the present manuscript, but it may ultimately bear on the affinities of the fossil within Vegaviidae, i.e., whether it is more closely related to Vegavis or Polarornis.
(Gerald Mayr)
No comment
No comment
No comment
Dear Editor,
The article is concise and well-written. It includes novel information about a very interesting and potentially important specimen. I congratulate authors for such interesting contribution.
Some minor comments are included in the attached PDF.
I think the article should be accepted after minor corrections.
All the best,
Federico Agnolin
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.