Insights into stem Batomorphii: A new holomorphic ray (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) from the upper Jurassic of Germany

Julia Türtscher; Patrick L. Jambura; Frederik Spindler; Jürgen Kriwet

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310174

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 12, 2024
9 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Jörg Fröbisch, Editor PONE-D-24-14855Insights into stem Batomorphii: A new holomorphic ray (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) from the Upper Jurassic of GermanyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Türtscher, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: This is a very nice and informative manuscript that provides new insights into stem batomorphs. It is close to being publishable as is, but 2 of the 3 reviewers raised some minor points and suggestions for improvement. Please consider them carefully and address them in your resubmission. I don't have any major objections and only found some very minor typos, which I will list in the following and ask you to correct: Line 114 correct spelling of 'Kieselplattenkalk' Line 304 delet 1x "are" Line 312 correct spelling of describe Line 549 correct spelling of discernible ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 24 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, 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 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. 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 ""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. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This research was funded in whole by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) P35357 and P33820 to JK." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This research was funded in whole by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) P35357 and P33820 to JK. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. 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: This is a very nice and informative manuscript that provides new insights into stem batomorphs. It is close to being publishable as is, but 2 of the 3 reviewers raised some minor points and suggestions for improvement. Please consider them carefully and address them in your resubmission. I don't have any major objections and only found some very minor typos, which I will list in the following and ask you to correct: Line 114 correct spelling of 'Kieselplattenkalk' Line 304 delet 1x "are" Line 312 correct spelling of describe Line 549 correct spelling of discernible [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 an interesting paper that contributes to the knowledge of the paleoichthyology of the Late Jurassic of Germany. The manuscript is clear, concise and well written. Figures are of high quality. Results and DIscussion are supported by data. For these reason I suggest to accept the manuscript as it is. Reviewer #2: Dear Editor and Authors, The study reports of a new batomorph species from the Painten locality (Solnhofen Arcipelago, Upper Jurassic). Data are presented in an appropriate fashion and statistics are more than adequate. The inferences are well-supported and the language is fluent. All in all, this study is of international and broad interest and provides novel and vey significant information. There are only some minor points I would like to raise: - I would recommend inserting a figure for the geological/paleogeographic/geographic setting to better display all the localities of the Solnhofen Arcipelago and the relationships with Painten. It would be also reasonable to include a stratigraphic scheme of the quarry with indication of the level of provenance of the new taxon. - There are minor typos in the manuscript, please check all the issues throughout the whole manuscript, I might have missed some of them (indications in the annotated reviewer attachment) - Landmarks are described in a caption, I would recommend describing them in a paragraph in the method section or in supplementaries and shortening the caption. - Please consider inserting a paragraph with salient diagnostic characters of the new order as indicated in the annotated attachment, just as a brief summary of the character discussed. - line 578-582: please consider dividing the sentences, it is quite complex. - The discussion section does not include any hint of the stratigraphic distribution of the new taxon in comparison with the other identified taxa, while in the conclusion paragraph it is said that the new taxon is the oldest Jurassic batomorph. I would recommend emphasizing and discussing extensively this in the discussion paragraph, I think it could be significant. Is there any pattern in the stratigraphic distribution of the mentioned taxa? Also a figure could be useful for the comparison. - The phylogenetic hypothesis is very interesting and the authors also stressed it to be treated with caution, but I think that the result is significant. I would recommend emphasizing also in the conclusion paragraph that the new order should be treated as a working hypothesis, unresolved for still undescribed material from other Lagerstatten; it might be redundant but I think it is always good. I would be pleased to answer any question from the authors and be open to any discussion. Best regards, Jacopo Amalfitano, PhD Reviewer #3: This is an excellent piece of work further emphasising the diversity of Late Jurassic batoids. The descriptions, discussions and conclusions are all good. I would suggest looking at the ordering of sections- the large sections on landmarks and other methods comes before anything on the fossil and therefore suggests considerable prior knowledge of batoid anatomy. The description is good, but the section on teeth and denticles is very brief- I know teeth are not clear but presumably there is a large denticle coverage and it is this that gives the outline. The phylogeny looks good and makes a lot of sense. ****** 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: Giuseppe Marramà Reviewer #2: Yes: Jacopo Amalfitano Reviewer #3: Yes: Charlie Underwood ******** [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-24-14855_annotated-JA.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: review comments_JA.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310174.r001
Revision 1
14 Aug 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers Editor Comments: This is a very nice and informative manuscript that provides new insights into stem batomorphs. It is close to being publishable as is, but 2 of the 3 reviewers raised some minor points and suggestions for improvement. Please consider them carefully and address them in your resubmission. Response: Thank you very much! We have addressed all of the reviewers' comments (see revised document and comments below) and are confident that this revision has improved the quality of the manuscript and brought it to a publishable state. I don't have any major objections and only found some very minor typos, which I will list in the following and ask you to correct: Line 114 correct spelling of 'Kieselplattenkalk' Line 304 delete 1x "are" Line 312 correct spelling of describe Line 549 correct spelling of discernible Response: Thank you for pointing out all these typos; we corrected them. Reviewer #1: The manuscript is an interesting paper that contributes to the knowledge of the palaeoichthyology of the Late Jurassic of Germany. The manuscript is clear, concise and well written. Figures are of high quality. Results and Discussion are supported by data. For these reasons I suggest to accept the manuscript as it is. Response: Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript, we are delighted to read these positive comments! Reviewer #2: Dear Editor and Authors, the study reports of a new batomorph species from the Painten locality (Solnhofen Archipelago, Upper Jurassic). Data are presented in an appropriate fashion and statistics are more than adequate. The inferences are well-supported and the language is fluent. All in all, this study is of international and broad interest and provides novel and very significant information. Response: Thank you for reviewing the manuscript and for your positive and constructive feedback! There are only some minor points I would like to raise: I would recommend inserting a figure for the geological/paleogeographic/geographic setting to better display all the localities of the Solnhofen Archipelago and the relationships with Painten. It would be also reasonable to include a stratigraphic scheme of the quarry with indication of the level of provenance of the new taxon. Response: We agree and thus included a figure with the geographical setting as well as the stratigraphy of Painten. For the palaeogeographic setting, we refer in the text to Villalobos-Segura et al. (2023): A synoptic review of the cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyes: Holocephali, Elasmobranchii) from the Upper Jurassic Konservat-Lagerstätten of southern Germany: taxonomy, diversity, and faunal relationships, as this very recent publication includes a geographical and palaeogeographical map of the Solnhofen Archipelago with biostratigraphical information. There are minor typos in the manuscript, please check all the issues throughout the whole manuscript, I might have missed some of them (indications in the annotated reviewer attachment). Response: Thank you very much for pointing out these typos, we checked the manuscript and corrected them. Landmarks are described in a caption; I would recommend describing them in a paragraph in the method section or in supplementaries and shortening the caption. Response: We agree that the figure caption was too long with the landmark descriptions included. Therefore, we moved this part to the respective Method-sections. Please consider inserting a paragraph with salient diagnostic characters of the new order as indicated in the annotated attachment, just as a brief summary of the character discussed. Response: As suggested, we included a paragraph with the diagnostic characters of the new order. line 578-582: please consider dividing the sentences, it is quite complex. Response: As suggested, we divided this complex sentence. Previously this sentence read “The dorsal fins appear to have been flipped over first, followed by the rigid spine because of taphonomic processes, resulting in the supraneural spines piercing the already decomposing skin and the flipped dorsal fins becoming 'stuck' between supraneural spines and the folded skin on the right side of the tail.”. The split, new sentence now reads: “Due to taphonomic processes, the dorsal fins appear to have been flipped over first, followed by the rigid spine. This apparently resulted in the supraneural spines piercing the already decomposing skin, and the flipped dorsal fins becoming 'stuck' between the supraneural spines and the folded skin on the right side of the tail.” The discussion section does not include any hint of the stratigraphic distribution of the new taxon in comparison with the other identified taxa, while in the conclusion paragraph it is said that the new taxon is the oldest Jurassic batomorph. I would recommend emphasizing and discussing extensively this in the discussion paragraph, I think it could be significant. Is there any pattern in the stratigraphic distribution of the mentioned taxa? Also, a figure could be useful for the comparison. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We revised the first paragraph of the discussion, added stratigraphic information about the taxa, and emphasised that the new taxon is the oldest Jurassic batomorph from southern Germany. The phylogenetic hypothesis is very interesting and the authors also stressed it to be treated with caution, but I think that the result is significant. I would recommend emphasizing also in the conclusion paragraph that the new order should be treated as a working hypothesis, unresolved for still undescribed material from other Lagerstätten; it might be redundant but I think it is always good. Response: We agree and have included this statement in the conclusions as follows: “The results suggest that †Ap. seioma gen. et sp. nov. and †Ae. bavarica are more closely related to each other than to the other members of the newly established stem group batomorph order Apolithabatiformes ord. nov., but also that the interrelationships of Late Jurassic rays are still largely unresolved. The new order should therefore be treated as a working hypothesis that will require further testing after the inclusion of still undescribed specimens.”. Reviewer #3: This is an excellent piece of work further emphasising the diversity of Late Jurassic batoids. The descriptions, discussions and conclusions are all good. Response: Thank you for reviewing the manuscript and for your positive and constructive feedback! I would suggest looking at the ordering of sections - the large sections on landmarks and other methods comes before anything on the fossil and therefore suggests considerable prior knowledge of batoid anatomy. Response: We see your point, but we decided to keep the current arrangement for three reasons: (1) The "Materials and Methods" section is in the same order as the "Results" section (i.e., Anatomy, Traditional Morphometrics, Geometric Morphometrics, Phylogeny), which we think makes sense. (2) It would be possible to include the Systematic Palaeontology below "Materials" and before the rest of the "Materials and Methods" section, but we feel that the description of the specimen belongs more to the results than to MM, and that this arrangement would split up the "Materials and Methods", potentially causing more confusion than the current arrangement. (3) We have included several figures and line drawings of the specimen with the anatomical characters labelled, as well as illustrations showing the measurements taken and the landmark configuration, and are therefore confident that readers without in-depth anatomical knowledge of batomorphs will still be able to follow our methods and results. Thank you very much for this constructive comment, and we hope that you will agree with us leaving the structure as it is. The description is good, but the section on teeth and denticles is very brief - I know teeth are not clear but presumably there is a large denticle coverage and it is this that gives the outline. Response: We agree and have included a short paragraph as well as a figure on the denticles in the description. However, it is not possible to go into more detail on tooth and denticle morphology at this time, as we do not have microscopic images and cannot provide them at this time. As the focus of this paper lies on skeletal anatomy and body outline, we also feel that a more detailed description of teeth and denticles is not necessary at this point. Finally, we would like to add that there are plans for future projects on holomorphic Late Jurassic batomorphs which will focus on tooth and denticle morphology and will include the specimen described in this paper. The phylogeny looks good and makes a lot of sense. Response: Thank you very much! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310174.r002
27 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Jörg Fröbisch, Editor Insights into stem Batomorphii: A new holomorphic ray (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) from the Upper Jurassic of Germany PONE-D-24-14855R1 Dear Dr. Türtscher, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Jörg Fröbisch, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310174.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Jörg Fröbisch, Editor PONE-D-24-14855R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Türtscher, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Jörg Fröbisch Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310174.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .