PONE-D-21-30107Geometric Morphometric analysis of morphologic disparity, intraspecific variation and ontogenetic allometry of beyrichitine ammonoidsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bischof,

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. From comments provided by Reviewer 2, please consider adding few more references to previous works to improve the discussion.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cyril Charles

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3.Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“There are no competing interests.”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 is about a complex topic, the morphometric study of ontogeny of selected Anisian ammonoid species from Nevada (USA).

The fossil localities are worlwide known for the abundance of ammonoids and their very good preservation. The systematic study of these ammonoid faunas, based on population analysis and traditional approach, is quite recent (Silberling & Nichols, 1982; Bucher, 1992; Monnet & Bucher, 2005), and is a good starting point for the research of the authors.

This manuscript is focused on a specific group of ammonoids, the Beyrichitinae, that is aboundant in the studied succession and provides several index species for the chronostratigraphy of the Anisian on the North American Paleobioprovince. The 8 species selected for this study are the most representative of this group. Ontogeny of these species has never been cross compared.

The quality of the specimens selected for sectioning is very good. The morphometric mesurements have been made with great accuracy and the data analysis is done with up-to-date mathematic techiques, that have never been applied before to Beyrichitinae.

The manuscript is well organized and written in a very very good English. Figures are all of good quality. The results are very well presented and the discussion is well organized. The identification of pedomorphic relationships within north american Beyrichitinae is an important results. Heterochrony in Triassic ammonoid has been rarely described, therefore this manuscript will be a reference for all the future investigations on Triassic.

I do not see any weak points in the manuscript. It would be interesting to compare the sutures line of the studied species, in order to test if the differences in the suture lines are consistent with pedomorphic relationship. As far as I remember, some suture lines have been published by Silberling & Nichols (1982) from Fossil Hill and perhaps Spath (1934), but I have not checked if sutures are available for all the 8 species under study.

This test could be useful because some Tethyan Beyrichitinae, such as Kocaelia Fantini Sestini 1990, show a peramorphic relationship as regard the suture line, with an increasing complication (accelleration) of the indentitions.

Reviewer #2: You present an interesting and novel approach to study intraspecific variation throughout ontogeny in ammonoid whorl cross section and compare it with morphological disparity. I enjoyed reading and reviewing the paper and look forward to seeing the revised version. I just would like to see a little bit more discussion on previous research in this direction as I feel this would place your work in even broader context, widen its scope and further highlight the importance and innovativeness of your approach. The most important points being:

1) The consideration of heterochrony and ontogenetic trajectories when comparing specimens within and between species: this approach has a long tradition particularly in ammonoid research (e.g., Michalsky 1890 and more formally by Schmidt 1926). Studying intraspecific variation throughout ontogeny and differences (or lack thereof) between species has also been studied by various authors (e.g., particularly in Paleozoic ammonoids: Korn and Vöhringer 2004; Korn and Klug 2007; Ebbighausen and Korn 2007; De Baets et al. 2013; but also, Mesozoic ammonoids: Dommergues and Marchand 1986; Gerber et al. 2007, 2008; Gerber 2011).

2) Heterochrony and the environment: you mainly cite McKinney to back up this association, which is classical work, but additional publications have been published particularly targeting ammonoids (e.g., Landman and Geyssant 1993; Gerber 2011). Also, I feel it would be more appropriate to cite the full chapter reference giving credit to author of individual chapters of McKinney 1991 and would also make it easier to follow on which aspects these chapters focus.

3) Bradymorphic versus tachymorphic: Schmidt (1926) introduced these terms to refer to the extreme end members of trajectories within a species which possess characteristics of earlier whorl later (in terms of heterochrony: paedomorphic) or later whorl earlier in development (in terms of heterochrony: peramorphic), respectively. Also, Beznosov and Mitta (1995) used this terminology. I feel it is worth to at least mention these terms and if these could apply to your observations.

4) Changes in the degree of intraspecific variation through ontogeny: you mention that previous studies reported decrease in variability from the oldest to youngest stage and vice versa. The situation might be even more complex as some authors even report high variation particularly in early and late stage or vice versa in intermediate stages further backing your statement is no support for a clear-cut pattern. It would also speak about “life stage” or “ontogenetic stage” in this context/sentence rather than just “stage” to avoid confusion with geological stages.

These and additional points as well as the full citations of the mentioned references can be found in the annotated pdf (or references listed therein).

Please do not hesitate to contact me in case of questions or if something is unclear.

**********

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: Yes: Marco Balini

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kenneth De Baets

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-30107_reviewer_KDB.pdf

Geometric Morphometric analysis of morphologic disparity, intraspecific variation and ontogenetic allometry of beyrichitine ammonoids

PONE-D-21-30107R1

Dear Dr. Bischof,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Cyril Charles

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: