PONE-D-24-35763Early Paleoindian use of canids, felids, and hares for bone needle production at the La Prele site, Wyoming, USAPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pelton,

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.

This is an excellent study that will be of interest to many researchers. The two reviews of this paper are both very positive and raise only minor questions and suggest small edits. The two reviews conflict on the necessity of the description in the Material and Methods section, with Reviewer 1 suggesting it could be moved to Supplemental materials and Reviewer 2 requesting the addition of some detail in this section. My inclination is to keep the Materials and Methods section as is and perhaps address Reviewer 2's concern. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 02 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,

Briggs Buchanan, 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Funding for this project includes the National Science Foundation, the Wyoming Cultural Trust Fund, the Quest Archaeological Research Program at Southern Methodist University, and the George C. Frison Institute for Archaeology and Anthropology.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The Strock family has been gracious in allowing investigations of La Prele on their land. Funding for this project includes the National Science Foundation, the Wyoming Cultural Trust Fund, the Quest Archaeological Research Program at Southern Methodist University, and the George C. Frison Institute for Archaeology and Anthropology.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is 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:

“Funding for this project includes the National Science Foundation, the Wyoming Cultural Trust Fund, the Quest Archaeological Research Program at Southern Methodist University, and the George C. Frison Institute for Archaeology and Anthropology.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. 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 an excellent study that will be of interest to many researchers. The two reviews of this paper are both very positive and raise only minor questions and suggest small edits. The two reviews conflict on the necessity of the description in the Material and Methods section, with Reviewer 1 suggesting it could be moved to Supplemental materials and Reviewer 2 requesting the addition of some detail in this section. My inclination is to keep the Materials and Methods section as is and perhaps address Reviewer 2's concern.

[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: 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: What a nifty paper!! Really solid analyses and logic that not only provide insight to which animal taxa were exploited for what purposes but reminds us quite explicitly (and correctly) that animals were more than food sources for foragers. I like this paper a lot and find it quite worthy of publication in PLOS One. However, before publication there are some things that need to be fixed; these are mostly typographical errors and points of clarification, nothing terribly onerous. Taking them in order in the manuscript:

--p. 3, last paragraph: “like canids, felids, etc”. which implies not canids, felids, etc. but something “like” them, so change “like” to “such as”

--p. 3, last paragraph, sentence spanning lines 4-6: may want to add that carnivores are relatively rare on the landscape whereas leporids are typically relatively abundant

--p. 3, last paragraph, third line from bottom: “the first evidence” when I initially read this, my thought was hardly that this was “the first” as others had made similar arguments, but it is of course the first discussion of La Prele needles (so far as I know). But think about deleting “the first” or rewording so the wrong impression is not suggested.

--p. 4, first paragraph under “Materials and Methods”, last sentence: why measured in five locations? Even on specimens a few mm long? And how are these data reflected in Fig. 4? Of what significance is taking measurements in five locations on a specimen, even if it is a complete needle? Without answering these questions, this is information that adds nothing but words to the manuscript.

--pp. 4-6: “Materials and Method”— I find much of these paragraphs to be unnecessary. ZooMS is a well established, well known and generally accepted viable method, and Micro-CT scanning seems similarly known among at least some people. These paragraphs distract one’s attention from the focus of the article—which taxa contributed their bones to Paleoindian needles? I suggest considering putting much of this in supplemental material, or shortening it considerably.

--p. 5, second paragraph: these taxonomic names should include the common names here (on first mention) as well. Will most readers know what a Miracinonyx trumani is? Or what a Uroycyon cinereoargenteus is? Once common names have been listed, any later mention of specific taxa can just be to taxonomic names or common names (one or the other). Listing both taxonomic and common names later (such as found on p. 6 and p. 8 and p. 11) is too late to be helpful (and duplication is unnecessary). See also my comment on p. 7 below.

--p. 6, next to last line: “std” I suspect I know what this is--it likely is not “sexually transmitted disease”. But from my perspective it is not standard statistical abbreviation; SD is what I am used to seeing (assuming what is meant is “standard deviation”). Same comment for second line on p. 7.

--p. 7, table 1: why are both species and common names listed? I suggest using one or the other rather than the mixture. See my comment on p. 5 above.

--p. 8, last paragraph, third line: “sp.” should not be italicized here or anyplace else.

--p. 8, last line: “poorly understood”. This may be true in Wyoming but not everywhere where pygmy rabbit is found (e.g., Lyman, RL. 2004. Biogeographic and Paleoenvironmental Implications of Late Quaternary Pygmy Rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) in Eastern Washington. Western North American Naturalist 64:1–6). Does perhaps the most recent rendition of FAUNMAP have some info on this?

--p. 9, line 4: “four bone needles”. I suspect, based on subsequent discussion, this is much like a “minimum number” estimate based on similarity in dimensions, provenience, and taxon represented by sets of fragments. It would help to state such bases for the estimate here rather than leaving it until later.

--p. 9, just above figure 3 caption: “Lynx/Puma/Miracinonyx” all should be italicized

--p. 10, second paragraph, line 3: “5 to 7 cm long”—how many specimens are complete or nearly so? As I recall from Lyman (2015), most specimens are shorter but are incomplete. And think about this (as Lyman 2015 suggests), if the needle is two long, it likely will snap as one attempts to wiggle it back and forth through a too-small hole already in the hide. Why do you suppose so many of the needles we find are broken? I doubt this is all post-depositional fragmentation.

--p. 10, second paragraph, last four lines: lengthwise split leporid metapodials. Not an unreasonable suggestion, but have you tried to split one of them lengthwise? I suspect it would not be easy to do it consistently successfully. How, for instance, is the metapodial firmly secured such that graving its length (seems the most logical technique of splitting) doesn’t skitter all over?

--p. 11, fourth line from bottom: this took me a few minutes to figure out what the “two artifacts” are: the bone needle artifact was easy to note, but the “fur-bearing mammal bone” as an artifact was not, likely because 99.3% of all zooarchaeological mammal bones I have ever studied were NOT considered artifacts by the archaeologists who dug them up and sent them to me. And this is my impression of the discipline at large—mammal bones ain’t artifacts (if anything other than animal bones, they are ecofacts). Consider rewording this sentence.

--p. 12, lines 4-5: you might consider noting that the trapping notion has a test implication. Trapped carnivorous fur bearers tend to be dominated by males rather than females given behavioral differences (for references and an archaeological example, see: Lyman, R. L. 2007. Prehistoric Mink (Mustela vison) Trapping on the Northwest Coast (USA). Journal of Field Archaeology 32:91–95). Not that you need to do this, but it might be good to mention this as an avenue of future research.

--p. 12, line 3 of conclusions: “entirely conjectural” seems an overstatement as it implicitly derogates and belittles experimental work. Experimental work of course does not show how things were done in the past, only how they may have been done efficiently and effectively. But to categorize that work as conjectural will no doubt offend lithic replicators and any other experimental archaeologist. To then turn around and say “we obtained these results” is not only confusing (which results? On manufacturing protocol?) but misleading as it implies you did something regarding “bone needle production techniques” that previous workers did not do. In fact, you only determined which taxa were exploited; you did not determine how the needles were manufactured. And, you only conjectured that leporid metapodials were split lengthwise, and you did not even do experimental work to show that such was possible or whether grinding/abrasion or whittling or whatever was used to finish the needle. And you mention no evidence on the archaeological specimens as to whether they were ground/abraded or whittled or what.

--p. 13-17: there are typographical errors (e.g., refs 1 &19), formatting inconsistencies (e.g., sometimes book titles are capitalized, sometimes not), and missing info (e.g., refs. 28 & 30 & 34) scattered among the references. I have not listed them all here.

The list of things I believe require attention may seem long, but as indicated above, they are all relatively minor things. They do, nevertheless, need to be addressed. Once they are, this will be a significant contribution and I look forward to seeing a revised version published. I wish to be named as referee: R. Lee Lyman

Reviewer #2: This is an excellent manuscript and addresses an area worthy of investigation. What's more, the data and arguments are presented clearly and concisely.

The paper would be improved by addressing/clarifying two minor issues. First, there are frequent references to prey choice models and the place of furbearers in those models. In the text it isn't clear if the traditional return rates on furbearers (and thus their rank in traditional diet breadth models) are based on hunting or trapping. I don't think this changes the outcome of the study in any way but it would clarify whether or not the trapping behavior proposed in the article would affect the rank of these resources in existing prey choice models.

Second, the methods indicate that taxonomic identification relied on published marker peptides plus additional taxa analyzed for this study. What isn't clear is whether the published marker peptides included spectra for mustelids, procyonids, and other small mammals that could potentially be represented, or whether these other taxa were eliminated by other means.

Perhaps these issues go without saying to someone more familiar with Zooms, but the average reader (like this reviewer) might benefit from clarification. Both of these issues could be easily clarified in an added sentence or two.

Well done, very interesting, and a worthwhile contribution.

**********

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: R. Lee Lyman

Reviewer #2: Yes: David Kilby

**********

[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.

Early Paleoindian use of canids, felids, and hares for bone needle production at the La Prele site, Wyoming, USA

PONE-D-24-35763R1

Dear Dr. Pelton,

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,

Briggs Buchanan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: