PONE-D-23-29788From sabers to spikes: a newfangled reconstruction of the ancient, giant, sexually dimorphic Pacific salmon, †Oncorhynchus rastrosus(SALMONINAE: SALMONINI)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Claeson,

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 are very pleased with the manuscript, only minor corrections have been suggested. Reviewer 2 remarks that the "The extended discussion of possible functions seems to me to be a bit over the top in terms of detail, and the language used is rather informal". I agree with this remark and thus have inserted a few detailed comments on the discussion. If you can take care of the minor comments there should be no problem to publish this very interesting manuscript. I am looking forward to the revised version.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 14 2024 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,

Paul Eckhard Witten, PhD

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.

3. 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.

4. We note that Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ,8, 9 and S1Fig.tif in your submission contain copyrighted images. 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 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:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ,8, 9 and S1Fig.tif 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].”

2. 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.

5. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [S1Matrix.nex]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

6. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Claeson,

the reviewers are very pleased with the manuscript, only minor corrections have been suggested. Reviewer 2 remarks that the "The extended discussion of possible functions seems to me to be a bit over the top in terms of detail, and the language used is rather informal". I agree with this remark and thus have inserted a few detailed comments on the discussion. If you can take care of the comments, all of which are minor, there should be no problem to publish this very interesting manuscript. I am looking forward to the revised version.

Kind regards, Eckhard Witten

Reviewer1:

This is an extremely interesting article for several reasons. The material is new, well preserved, and phylogenetically informative. The use of tomographic scanning has opened up a wealth of useful and interesting data, which the authors have put fully to use! Finally (and most impreesively), the paper showcases the scientific value of a wide collaboration between collectors, scientists with access to sophisticated preparation and scanning technology, and a world-renowned scientific artist, Congratulations to all

I have no criticisms of the paper. It has been well written, beautifully illustrated, and is one of the most comprehensive and thorough scientific investigations of any fossil material I have seen.

Reviewer 2:

This is a fine and detailed reassessment of an amazing fish species. The techniques are appropriate. The descriptive anatomy is good and the illustrations are necessary and appropriate. I have only minor suggestions.

1. I am not sure what the authors mean by the term "salmonins." Their systematic section classifies the genus within the subfamily Salmoninae, but the correct/standard way to informally refer to that clade is "salmonines"

If they mean to refer to a tribe or subtribe, that would require yet another spelling.

2. The extended discussion of possible functions seems to me to be a bit over the top in terms of detail, and the language used is rather informal compared to the rest of the manuscript. I think it could be shortened by about a quarter and revised to a more technical style. I also noticed that some but not all of the in-text citations use the author-date style whereas most of the manuscript uses numbered citations.

3. Throughout my reading I noticed occasional problems of punctuation (missing or incorrect) and rarely missing words. Mostly it's well written. I left it to the authors and copy editor to find and fix those in the final draft.

4. I am sceptical of the idea that these huge fishes were semelparous, even though their relatives were and are. I can't think of many examples of huge animals that breed only once. Is there any way to determine (growth rings on vertebrae, otoliths, ?) how old they were when they ventured into and died in freshwater environments, and/or how long they had to live in the ocean to reach their final sizes? Are all the freshwater fossil finds of a similar huge size or might there be different ages/sizes? I am thinking that these fish were far larger than necessary to make the return trip to the lakes and rivers. Probably they were too large to breed in the shallows of smaller rivers and streams.

Overall, I like this paper.

Editors comments:

Line 610: please add a reference

Line 626-643, paragraph, discussion on the kype: Please add the published peer revived literature on the subject

Line 738: "fishes" is perhaps not a good term in a scientific paper. Comparing the function of enlarged teeth in groups as distant as elasmobranchs and actinopterygians one could as well discuss elephant tusks. At least elephants and salmonids are both in the same group, osteichthyans.

Line 755, please add species name or insert spp. if applies to the entire genus or sp. if the species is unknown

Line 790: please replace "fishes" by a specific scientific term

Line 790-792: axial muscles for raid moth extension, please check if this is correct

Line 824 and 828: please replace "fishes" by a specific scientific term

Line 841: spikes or teeth?

Line 853: add assumed, "assumed zooplanctivory…"

Line 853: "we can reliably rule out" this is a very strong statement, perhaps better down tune a bit

Line 876-868: …"edentulous portion of the dentary, which we interpret as evidence of a kype". Please consider, (a) in Atlantic salmon can have teeth on the kype, (b) in Atlantic salmon teeth are ankylosed to the jaw but the connection to the jaw is not fully mineralised. This was the reason that, based on macerated specimens, an edentulous stage prior to breeding has been described This turned out turned out not to be true, a maceration artefact. There is detailed published literature about the kype and the dentition of Atlantic salmon.

Line 871:…"plausible multifunctional". This is speculation that and does not add to the scientific discussion.

[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: This is an extremely interesting article for several reasons. The material is new, well preserved, and phylogenetically informative. The use of tomographic scanning has opened up a wealth of useful and interesting data, which the authors have put fully to use! Finally (and most impreesively), the paper showcases the scientific value of a wide collaboration between collectors, scientists with access to sophisticated preparation and scanning technology, and a world-renowned scientific artist, Congratulations to all.

Reviewer #2: This is a fine and detailed reassessment of an amazing fish species. The techniques are appropriate. The descriptive anatomy is good and the illustrations are necessary and appropriate. I have only minor suggestions.

1. I am not sure what the authors mean by the term "salmonins." Their systematic section classifies the genus within the subfamily Salmoninae, but the correct/standard way to informally refer to that clade is "salmonines"

If they mean to refer to a tribe or subtribe, that would require yet another spelling.

2. The extended discussion of possible functions seems to me to be a bit over the top in terms of detail, and the language used is rather informal compared to the rest of the manuscript. I think it could be shortened by about a quarter and revised to a more technical style. I also noticed that some but not all of the in-text ciitations use the author-date style whereas most of the manuscript uses numbered citations.

3. Throughout my reading I noticed occasional problems of punctuation (missing or incorrect) and rarely missing words. Mostly it's well written. I left it to the authors and copy editor to find and fix those in the final draft.

4. I am skeptical of the idea that these huge fishes were semelparous, even though their relatives were and are. I can't think of many examples of huge animals that breed only once. Is there any way to determine (growth rings on vertebrae, otoliths, ?) how old they were when they ventured into and died in freshwater environments, and/or how long they had to live in the ocean to reach their final sizes? Are all the freshwater fossil finds of a similar huge size or might there be different ages/sizes? I am thinking that these fish were far larger than necessary to make the return trip to the lakes and rivers. Probably they were too large to breed in the shallows of smaller rivers and streams.

Overall, I like this paper.

**********

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: John G, Maisey, Curator Emeritus, American Museum of Natural History, NY, USA.

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.

From sabers to spikes: a newfangled reconstruction of the ancient, giant, sexually dimorphic Pacific salmon, †Oncorhynchus rastrosus (SALMONINAE: SALMONINI)

PONE-D-23-29788R1

Dear Dr.  Claeson,

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,

Paul Eckhard Witten, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 have no substantial criticisms. As far as I'm concerned, the paper is now ready for publication.

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied with the revisions. The paper is even more interesting in revised form. I will look forward to seeing it in published form and also any further studies undertaken about its life history.

**********

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: Mark V. H. Wilson

**********