PONE-D-23-07642Dingoes, companions in life and death: the significance of archaeological canid burial practices in AustraliaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Koungoulos,

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.

The reviewers judged this as a fine paper, and I agree with their assessment. Reviewer 2 has some minor recommendations for improvement. This includes citation of additional literature, which should be considered.  Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2023 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,

Michael D. Petraglia, 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 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 manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported human remain 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 archeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research

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: 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: I note a few typographical errors. Page 3, lines 51-53: A number of untamed wild animals have been transported by boat, so I do not endorse the idea that transportation invariably indicates domestication. Could dingos have been transported when very young? Page 6. line 132; 'purused" substituted for "pursued". page 11 line 293: "bird" substituted for "birds" ; page 14, line 313: language flow is garbled. Suggest deleting ""such".

The manuscript is an important, even-handed, sensible, and timely review of the behavior of indigenes of Australia and their feelings about dingoes from early accounts. Such data (diaries, letters, written accounts) are unlikely to be available outside of Australia or Oceania but are extremely pertinent to ongoing debates about whether dingoes are domesticated, whether or not dingoes are the same species as domesticated dogs, how dingoes might have spread throughout Australia and Near Oceania, and what circumstances might or might not have influenced treatment of dingoes possibly leading to domestication. In addition, the authors review archaeological or paleontological finds of dingo remains, which give strong support to assertions that dingoes were often buried or treated after death in a manner very similar to that observed for the dsposal of human remains -- and sometimes within areas used for human disposal. The authors are to be congratulated on seeking records of Aboriginal treatment of dingoes before modification or contamination by colonials and their domesticated animals.

This paper unquestionably deserves publication and attention. It is outstanding.

Reviewer #2: The dingo was introduced to Australia in the late Holocene and is primarily a wild animal. However, some dingoes were raised by Aboriginal people and lived in their camps until sexual maturity, after which they returned to the wild to reproduce. Some of these dingoes died while in the company of people and were buried in occupation sites, a practice that has received little research. Dingoes were buried in the same manner as Aboriginal community members, sometimes alongside people, and this practice likely occurred from the time of their introduction until soon after European colonization. The authors present a case-study of dingo burials from Curracurrang Rockshelter in New South Wales which provides insights into the lives of ancient tame dingoes, suggesting that domestication and genetic continuity may have occurred prior to European contact.

The ecological and historical impacts of dingoes, their taxonomic identity and their relationships with Australian Aboriginal people, has presented a lot of debate in the scientific literature. It does not help those perceptions of dingoes is mixed within the community, with some recognizing their unique ecological and cultural role, while others just regard them as pests. This manuscript is a very detailed description of dingo burials in Australia and presents some evidence that suggests domestication. The authors, however, keep a cautious tone, which is very welcome to see in the various debates about dingoes.

The writing, descriptions and figures/tables are all well presented and very detailed. What is missing is some of the subtleties of the debate when they are mentioned, and the missing of some key literature. These are mentioned in the minor comments below.

Minor Comments

Line 14: The Jackson papers argued for Canis familiaris not Canis familiaris dingo. It will be best to cite Smith et al. and Crowther et al .and acknowledge the differences of opinions in the literature. The recent genetic work of Kylie Cairns, demonstrating the differences between dingoes and dogs, is worth mentioning here.

Line 51: There are good references about the history of the introduction of cats and foxes into Australia including (Abbott 2002; Abbott 2011; Abbott, Peacock et al. 2014; Fairfax 2019).

Line 88: The arguments of Bill Ballard and coauthors regarding domestication and the dingo are also work exploring (Ballard and Wilson 2019; Field, Yadav et al. 2022).

Lines 525-542. These arguments for the taxonomic recognition are one of the arguments, and were certainly explored by Ballard and Wilson (2019), but they are not the sole argument of either camp in the dingo taxonomy debate. This often comes down to whether domesticated forms also deserve separate names to their wild ancestors, particularly where they wild ancestors’ direct populations may be extinct. This is beyond the scope of this paper, but certainly worth discussion in another forum. It should be briefly mentioned about how much the argument is about domestication, and how much about genetic (see the work of Kylie Cairns), morphological, behavioral and ecological differences.

In addition, there appears evidence here of phenotypic divergence due to secondary domestication of a population of wild dingoes. Although exciting and significant findings, these may actually not add much to the debate on dingo taxonomy, as mentioned by the authors in Lines 721-722. It may be more relevant in the literature about domestication as a whole, and how both human and environmental pressures have shaped the evolution of dingoes.

Abbott, I (2002) Origin and spread of the cat, Felis catus, on mainland Australia, with a discussion of the magnitude of its early impact on native fauna. Wildlife Research 29(1), 51-74.

Abbott, I (2011) The importation, release, establishment, spread, and early impact on prey animals of the red fox Vulpes vulpes in Victoria and adjoining parts of south-eastern Australia. Australian Zoologist 35(3), 463-533.

Abbott, IJ, Peacock D, and Short J (2014) The new guard: the arrival and impacts of cats and foxes. In 'Carnivores of Australia : past, present and future.' (Ed. A Glen and C Dickman) pp. 69-104 (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Vic, Australia)

Ballard, JWO, and Wilson LAB (2019) The Australian dingo: untamed or feral? Frontiers in Zoology 16(1), 2.

Fairfax, RJ (2019) Dispersal of the introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes) across Australia. Biological Invasions 21(4), 1259-1268.

Field, MA, Yadav S, Dudchenko O, Esvaran M, Rosen BD, Skvortsova K, Edwards RJ, Keilwagen J, Cochran BJ, Manandhar B, Bustamante S, Rasmussen JA, Melvin RG, Chernoff B, Omer A, Colaric Z, Chan EKF, Minoche AE, Smith TPL, Gilbert MTP, Bogdanovic O, Zammit RA, Thomas T, Aiden EL, and Ballard JWO (2022) The Australian dingo is an early offshoot of modern breed dogs. Science Advances 8(16), eabm5944.

**********

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: Pat Shipman

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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.

Dingoes, companions in life and death: the significance of archaeological canid burial practices in Australia

PONE-D-23-07642R1

Dear Dr. Koungoulos,

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,

Michael D. Petraglia, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: