PONE-D-19-19097

A NEW ARCHOSAUROMORPH FROM SOUTH AMERICA PROVIDES INSIGHTS ON THE EARLY DIVERSIFICATION OF TANYSTROPHEIDS

PLOS ONE

Dear De-Oliveira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 20 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jörg Fröbisch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location.

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS ONE's requirements for paleontology and archaeology research, see " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research."

3. Please take this opportunity to be sure you have met all of our guidelines for new species. For proper registration of a new zoological taxon, we require two specific statements to be included in your manuscript.

a)    In the Results section, the globally unique identifier (GUID), currently in the form of a Life Science Identifier (LSID), should be listed under the new species name, for example:

Anochetus boltoni Fisher sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:B6C072CF-1CA6-40C7-8396-534E91EF7FBB

Another LSID for the manuscript itself should also appear within the Nomenclature statement. You will need to contact Zoobank (zoobank.org/About) to obtain a GUID (LSID). You should receive one LSID for your manuscript and a separate, unique LSID for the new species.

b)    Please also insert the following text into the Methods section, in a sub-section to be called "Nomenclatural Acts":

The electronic edition of this article conforms to the requirements of the amended International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and hence the new names contained herein are available under that Code from the electronic edition of this article. This published work and the nomenclatural acts it contains have been registered in ZooBank, the online registration system for the ICZN. The ZooBank LSIDs (Life Science Identifiers) can be resolved and the associated information viewed through any standard web browser by appending the LSID to the prefix "" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">http://zoobank.org/". The LSID for this publication is: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub: XXXXXXX. The electronic edition of this work was published in a journal with an ISSN, and has been archived and is available from the following digital repositories: PubMed Central, LOCKSS [author to insert any additional repositories].

All PLOS ONE articles are deposited in PubMed Central and LOCKSS. If your institute, or those of your co-authors, has its own repository, we recommend that you also deposit the published online article there and include the name in your article.

Following a recent ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, electronic journals are now a valid format for publication of new zoological taxa. In order to ensure the valid publication of your new species, please be sure to include the updated version of Nomenclatural Acts (above). A complete explanation of our guidelines for publishing new species can be found on our website: http://www.plosone.org/static/guidelines#zoological.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please pay attention to the comments and requests of both reviewers, in particular with regards to the phylogenetic analysis and inclusion of crucial additional (and previously included) basal tanystropheids and close relatives.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript reported a new species related with tanystropheid protorosaurs from South America and is an important addition to the scientific world. The manuscript is also generally well written and well organized. However, complete omission of two important protorosaurs including Boreopricea and Dinocephalosaurus throughout the manuscript prevents me to recommend the publication of the manuscript in its present form. One of the major conclusions of the manuscript is that the new species is the sister taxon of tanystropheid protorosaurs. However, two other well known protorosaur taxa including Jesairosaurus and Dinocephalosaurus were not included into the phylogenetic analysis, while they have been recovered as the sister group of tanystropheids in previous publications. See below for detailed comments.

1. p. 3, l. 47-50: Any reason to exclude Dinocephalosaurus from Tanystropheidae? Dinocephalosaurus has been recovered as a tanystropheid by Liu et al. (2017, Nature Communications) and its morphology has been also well established by Liu et al. (2017) and Rieppel et al. (2008, JVP).

2. p. 5, Phylogenetic Analysis: this section is problematic. The authors exclude Jesairosaurus from phylogenetic analysis simply because they did not examine the specimens by themselves. However, I noticed that the same group of authors indeed included Jesairosaurus into the phylogenetic analysis (De Oliveira et al, 2018, APP). Especially De Oliveira et al. (2018) noticed that Jesairosaurus is the immediate sister group of tanystropheids. Now the same group of authors described another protorosaur claiming a sister group relationship of the newly reported taxon and tanystropheids. This is apparently inconvincible. Indeed the morphology of Jesairosaurus was well presented by Jalil (1997, JVP). Anyway the authors are not preparing a new data matrix and they simply used an existed data matrix. I see no reason to exclude Jesairosaurus from their phylogenetic analysis.

Also Boreopricea and Dinocephalosaurus were recovered as the consecutive sister groups of the traditionally recognized tanystropheids (Liu et al., 2017). The authors even did not mention these two taxa throughout the manuscript, while morphology of both taxa has been well established (Benton and Allen, 1997, Palaeontology; Rieppel et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2017).

3. p. 7, diagnosis: any autapomorphy to support the species status of the new taxon?

4. Morphological comparison with archosaurmorphs: the authors should also compare their new taxon to the protorosaur Boreopricea and Dinocephalosaurus.

5. p. 18, l. 25: change “analyzes” to “analyses”.

6. p. 18-19, taxonomic remarks: still the reason given by the authors to exclude Jesairosaurus from their phylogenetic analysis is not convincible. Also the authors should give some remarks about their new taxon and those reported by the same authors (De Oliveira et al, 2018).

7. p. 21, Tanystropheid ecology and the lifestyle of Elessaurus gondwanoccidens: the authors apparently should mention Dinocephalosaurus since it’s ecology and lifestyle has been studied in very details.

Reviewer #2: The authors describe a new genus and species of early archosauromorph from the Early Triassic of Brazil. The specimen is extremely important for the fossil record of the group in South America because of the scarcity of Early Triassic specimens in this continent. The description of the new species is very detailed and the anatomy is well figured. The phylogenetic analysis has been well conducted, but I have two comments that I would like that the authors address in the revised version of the manuscript. As a result, I strongly recommend the acceptance of this manuscript after minor changes indicated in a edited PDF version of the manuscript and the two moderate comments that I detailed as follows:

Main comments:

- Page 11, Phylogenetic analysis: The authors use a modified version of the data matrix published by Pritchard et al. (2015) to test the phylogenetic relationships of the new taxon. The authors justify properly the selection of this data set claiming that it is the analysis that includes a broader sample of tanystropheids. Nevertheless, the taxon and character sample of this data matrix considerably differs from that of Ezcurra (2016) and it would be very useful to test if the position of the new taxon as a sister taxon of Tanystropheide is also recovered in the latter data set. The data matrix of Ezcurra (2016) includes Jesairosaurus (a probable sister taxon to Tanystropheidae) and several phylogenetically informative characters among non-archosaurian archosauromorphs that are absent in the analysis of Pritchard et al. (2015). As a result, I strongly suggest the authors to conduct both analyses, using the latest versions of the data matrices of Pritchard et al. (2015) and Ezcurra (2016), respectively.

- Page 11, lines 116–117: I can't see the utility of this additional analysis. If you are doing a resample analysis it makes sense to check the percentage of recovery of the nodes because they are based on a perturbation and reanalysis of the data matrix. But if you are changing the number of steps that have the retained trees would not be informative the percentages of recovery. It is an analogous case to that of using a majority rule consensus tree from most parsimonious trees (you are wrongly excluding equally parsimonious topologies).

Yours sincerely,

Martin Ezcurra

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Martín D. Ezcurra

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-19097_reviewer_revision.pdf

PONE-D-19-19097R1

A NEW ARCHOSAUROMORPH FROM SOUTH AMERICA PROVIDES INSIGHTS ON THE EARLY DIVERSIFICATION OF TANYSTROPHEIDS

PLOS ONE

Dear De-Oliveira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 06 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jörg Fröbisch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors, I acknowledge that you made all the changes, however it beomomes apparent from the second round of reviews that the reviewers (and I fully agree with them) would like to have a more expanded section treating the phylogenetic analyses and placement of the new taxon. Hence, I strongly recommend for you to include the Ezcurra (2016) analysis, as requested by Martin Escurra and potentially also test the position of the taxon in Liu et al. (2017). I'm looking forward to your revised version. Best wishes and happy holidays, Jörg Fröbisch

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I noticed that the authors made substantial revisions taking into the two reviewers’ comments. However, I am still troubled by the phylogenetic analysis performed by the authors and feel that the phylogenetic evidence given by the authors are not convincible to support the sister relationship between their new taxon and Tanystropheidae, as they concluded. Ideally the authors should combine the two independent data matrix by Pritchard et al. (2015) and Liu et al. (2017) into one to test the phylogenetic position of the new taxon. Both are highly related with phylogenetic relationships of tanystropheids. If this is beyond the scope of the paper, it should be quite easy to test the position of the new taxon using the Liu et al. (2017) data matrix and compare the result with the one using Pritchard et al. (2015) data matrix. Also the supplementary figure should be included in the main text as another figure. I do not see the reason why this figure was put into the supplement. The authors should also clarify which data matrix exactly they used. In the author response letter, they indicated that they used the data matrix by Pritchard et al. (2015, JVP). In the revised manuscript, however, they cited the data matrix from Pritchard et al. (2018, Current Biology) for phylogenetic analysis. See below for other minor revisions.

1. l. 51: change “recovered more closer phylogenetically of” to “recovered closer phylogenetically to”.

2. l. 61: change “comes” to “come”.

3. Throughout the manuscript, I think that the authors should include another quite complete specimen of Dinocephalosaurus described by Liu et al. (2017) for comparison. There is no any reason to compare only with one specimen of a taxon when there is other good material of the same taxon available.

4. l. 301: what is Eucrocopoda??? An introduction should be given here, or at least a reference introducing this taxon. PLOS One is a multidiscplinary journal.

5. l. 444: change “Benton and Allen [36] described a lateral tuber in Boreopricea funerea (PIN 3708/1), this” to “Benton and Allen [36] described a lateral tuber in Boreopricea funerea (PIN 3708/1). This”.

6. l. 498: change “Recent phylogenetic analyzes recovered tanystropheids” to “Recent phylogenetic analyses recovered tanystropheids”.

7. l. 547: “The recovery of Elessaurus gondwanoccidens as the sister taxon of Tanystropheidae”. Apparently the authors do not provide convincible evidence to support this statement.

8. Supplementary Material 2 should be cited somewhere in the main text.

Reviewer #2: This is the revised version of a manuscript that I reviewed a few months ago. I found that the authors followed the vast majority of changes that I suggested, with the exception of including the new taxon in the most recent version of the phylogenetic dataset of Ezcurra (2016). Although I consider that the discussion of the phylogenetic relationships of the new taxon would benefit from its inclusion in the latter dataset, I consider that it is not completely necessary for the publication of the manuscript and it is something that others can explore in the future.

When I downloaded the data matrix provided as supplementary information I found that all characters were additive and scaled by 0.322 (I don’t know if this is the case, but this is an artefact that occurs when the data matrix is edited with Winclada and exported to other program). When I analysed the data matrix with this ordering of characters I recovered the same results reported by the authors (1 most parsimonious tree of 1120 steps). However, when I turned as additive only the characters considered as additive by Pritchard et al. (2018) I found 2 MPTs of 1104 (a considerably lower number of steps). However, only one difference in topology is present between the strict consensus trees of the first and second analyses.

Similarly, the “alternative” analysis of the authors recovered 30 MPTs of 1168 steps, but when I set the same ordered characters used by Pritchard et al. (2018) I recovered 13 MPTs of 1151 steps. Nevertheless, the strict consensus tree of this analysis is the same as that reported by the authors. The changes in the results of the phylogenetic analyses don’t alter the main results and conclusions of the manuscript, but it is something that the authors have to correct in the new version of the manuscript.

In addition, it would be interesting if the authors discuss the alternative positions that the new taxon adopt among the MPTs of the “alternative analysis” because it is found as the sister-taxon to Tanystropheidae but also as e.g. an early rhynchosaur, sister-taxon to Allokotosauria+Archosauriformes, and within Archosauriformes.

In conclusion, I think that the manuscript can be accepted after minor changes.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Ezcurra

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Martin Ezcurra

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-19-19097R2

A NEW ARCHOSAUROMORPH FROM SOUTH AMERICA PROVIDES INSIGHTS ON THE EARLY DIVERSIFICATION OF TANYSTROPHEIDS

PLOS ONE

Dear De-Oliveira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jörg Fröbisch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors, this manuscript is essentially about to be accepted. I made some very minor (mostly wording) changes to the manuscript text file and would like you to review these and preferable accept them. Please subsequently upload the clean modified file to the system. Also I noted that part of the stratigraphic chart of Fig. 5 is not in English (equivalent of Early, Middle, Late), please replace the Spanish abbreviations with English ones und upload the corrected version. Afterwards I will be happy to accept this manuscript for publication. Thank you very much and best wishes

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript_JF.docx

A NEW ARCHOSAUROMORPH FROM SOUTH AMERICA PROVIDES INSIGHTS ON THE EARLY DIVERSIFICATION OF TANYSTROPHEIDS

PONE-D-19-19097R3

Dear Dr. De-Oliveira,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Jörg Fröbisch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: