Macroscopic Markers of Dolphin Healing at Sea Linked to Immunity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript gives a comprehensive study, addressing a major gap in wound-healing biology, comparing the process in free-ranging dolphins and humans. The observations and results of this study is crucial in human regenerative medicine. The author describes 106 healing stories with observation spanning over 20 years and pictures at various times monitoring the wounds formed due to various causes such as shark attack and propeller hits. The eye witnessed shark-attack case and a day-by-day healing benchmark provided in the manuscript is a valuable resource for future studies. The study is significantly strong and original. It will definitely help further studies in the field of regenerative medicine. Except some very minor grammatical errors I cannot find any reason to opt for not publishing the manuscript.

Conclusion: The manuscript can be accepted for publication with minor fine tuning.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A few grammatical errors needs correction. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1: The manuscript gives a comprehensive study, addressing a major gap in wound-healing biology, comparing the process in free-ranging dolphins and humans. The observations and results of this study is crucial in human regenerative medicine. The author describes 106 healing stories with observation spanning over 20 years and pictures at various times monitoring the wounds formed due to various causes such as shark attack and propeller hits. The eye witnessed shark-attack case and a day-by-day healing benchmark provided in the manuscript is a valuable resource for future studies. The study is significantly strong and original. It will definitely help further studies in the field of regenerative medicine. Except some very minor grammatical errors I cannot find any reason to opt for not publishing the manuscript. Conclusion: The manuscript can be accepted for publication with minor fine tuning.

Weaver Response: Thank you. As per your request, I have submitted the manuscript to MDPI for professional editing. Edits are visible as Track Changes, which show that corrections were minor but improved sentence structure.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Macroscopic Markers of Dolphin Healing at Sea 2

Ann Weaver

General notes:

This is a well-written, thorough description of grossly visible skin lesions in a small cohort of Florida dolphins, with emphasis on progression of the lesions temporally. The literature review, introduction, and discussion points are comprehensive though would be interesting to see inclusion of other marine mammals (i.e. pinnipeds) in the comparisons of skin (epidermis/dermis) microanatomy and adaptive features provided they are also subject to similar marine environments with physiologic adaptations, however have full pelage like many terrestrial mammals.

Some of the discussion points could be further edited and amended, in particular when pertaining to immune responses and inflammation. These are very complex subjects, and as written, there are some statements that are over simplified for conciseness (understandably). Consider careful editing of the discussion points to relate back to the main goals of this paper…to add valuable temporal and gross/macroscopic data of individuals and their wound healing, and compare to other more well-studied species to develop more specific timelines for wound healing in dolphins.

Additionally, there are a few references that could be included and discussed, which I think could strengthen the manuscript, particularly pertaining to gross and histopathologic analyses of dolphin skin diseases.

Ewing RY, Sutton MN, Herring HM, Schubert MR, Boyd DM, Richardson JL and Rotstein DS (2023) Standardizing gross descriptions of skin lesions in common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)

stranded in Southwest Florida, 2015–2019. Front. Mar. Sci. 10:1269075. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1269075

Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 47(4), 2011, pp. 1012–1018 # Wildlife Disease Association 2011 Histologic Findings in Free-ranging Sarasota Bay Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Skin: Mercury, Selenium, and Seasonal Factors Debra L. Miller,1,4,6 Victoria Woshner,2 Eloise L. Styer,1 Sylvia Ferguson,3 Katrina K. Knott,2 Matthew J. Gray,4 Randall S. Wells,5 and Todd M. O’Hara

 

Chen-Yi Su, Tzu-Yu Liu, Hao-Ven Wang, Michael W. Hughes, Cheng-Ming Chuong, Wei-Cheng Yang,

Histological characterization of γδ T cells in cutaneous wound healing in Fraser's dolphins (Lagenodelphis hosei), Developmental & Comparative Immunology, Volume 163, 2025, 105326,ISSN 0145305X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2025.105326.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145305X25000151)

There are a few minor points listed below to consider:

Line 51: Should this be capitalized and italicized since it’s the Genus name of the bacteria? (i.e. Vibrio sp.)

Lines 57-61: Run on sentence, consider splitting into two statements

Line 68: dermatitis is a very general term and kind very mild or severe, depending on underlying cause, so this sentence does not make the point intended by author.

Line 101: “whose” should be replaced or sentence changed.

Line 125: the words in parentheses are not types of dermatitis so this is confusing. Also, paralysis and seizures are not skin specific so should be tallied/described as separate data points.

Line 128: Is this paper providing different data than the referenced manuscript?

Weaver, in press. Dolphin Healing at Sea without Medical Intervention: The Art and Science of Skin as the Faithful Canvas. Jaasas Academic Press: Treasure Island, FL, USA.

Line 303: Is this a complete sentence? “In dolphins, a key aquatic adaptation is that the 303 outer layers of flattened keratinocytes are incompletely cornified or keratinized [115] but 304 see [39].”

Line 335: Maybe exchange “sloughing” with “exfoliative”

 

Line 1805-1809: In lower vertebrates in addition to teleost fish (amphibians, reptiles) and also invertebrates, melanin, melanization, and melanomacrophages are vital to immune function and healing. Consider adding references and discussion points here.

Line 1815: Consider revising this statement “the primary purpose of inflammation”

Table 2 could be condensed and edited for more impact. As it is presented, it is difficult to read.

Author Response

Reviewer 2: General notes: This is a well-written, thorough description of grossly visible skin lesions in a small cohort of Florida dolphins, with emphasis on progression of the lesions temporally. The literature review, introduction, and discussion points are comprehensive though would be interesting to see inclusion of other marine mammals (i.e. pinnipeds) in the comparisons of skin (epidermis/dermis) microanatomy and adaptive features provided they are also subject to similar marine environments with physiologic adaptations, however have full pelage like many terrestrial mammals.

Weaver Response: Thank you. I intentionally excluded marine mammals with full pelage from the manuscript because hair and glands make vital contributions to healing in haired mammals. However, dolphin healing occurs without those vital contributions because they lack hair and sweat glands. In my view, this is an important departure of dolphin healing that needs emphasis. Dolphin healing mechanisms that replaced the contributions of hair and glands in haired mammals remain to be fully elucidated.

Reviewer 2: General notes: Some of the discussion points could be further edited and amended, in particular when pertaining to immune responses and inflammation. These are very complex subjects, and as written, there are some statements that are over simplified for conciseness (understandably). Consider careful editing of the discussion points to relate back to the main goals of this paper…to add valuable temporal and gross/macroscopic data of individuals and their wound healing, and compare to other more well-studied species to develop more specific timelines for wound healing in dolphins.

Weaver Response: Thank you. Immunity is indeed very complex. My goals for the introduction and discussion were to address aspects of healing that are likely to pertain to dolphins, suggest potential broad distinctions of dolphin healing (prolonged inflammation and remodeling, accelerated proliferation, excessive scarring), and provide healing timeframes as concisely as the data allowed. One of the major problems of studying cetacean healing at sea studies is lack of knowledge of when a wound occurred¸ which severely curtails conclusions about days of healing. I carefully reviewed the introduction and discussion and then revised to clarify relationships with the study’s goals. I addressed every published study of wound healing in free-ranging cetaceans. The field is its infancy and the publication list is currently quite modest. I believe the next valuable work would be to compare dolphin healing at sea to dolphin healing in captivity to begin to understand how captivity influences healing (treated water, rich diets, medical interventions).

Reviewer 2: General notes: Additionally, there are a few references that could be included and discussed, which I think could strengthen the manuscript, particularly pertaining to gross and histopathologic analyses of dolphin skin diseases.

Ewing RY, Sutton MN, Herring HM, Schubert MR, Boyd DM, Richardson JL and Rotstein DS (2023) Standardizing gross descriptions of skin lesions in common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) stranded in Southwest Florida, 2015–2019. Front. Mar. Sci. 10:1269075. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1269075

Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 47(4), 2011, pp. 1012–1018 # Wildlife Disease Association 2011 Histologic Findings in Free-ranging Sarasota Bay Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Skin: Mercury, Selenium, and Seasonal Factors Debra L. Miller,1,4,6 Victoria Woshner,2 Eloise L. Styer,1 Sylvia Ferguson,3 Katrina K. Knott,2 Matthew J. Gray,4 Randall S. Wells,5 and Todd M. O’Hara

Chen-Yi Su, Tzu-Yu Liu, Hao-Ven Wang, Michael W. Hughes, Cheng-Ming Chuong, Wei-Cheng Yang, Histological characterization of γδ T cells in cutaneous wound healing in Fraser's dolphins (Lagenodelphis hosei), Developmental & Comparative Immunology, Volume 163, 2025, 105326,ISSN 0145305X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2025.105326.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145305X25000151)

Weaver Response: I thank Reviewer 2 very much for taking the time to recommend three articles that enrich the manuscript and included select references to them where appropriate in the manuscript. My manuscript is based on a very large sample of macroscopic markers of wound healing among free-ranging live dolphins. The Faithful Canvas collection includes several dozen cases of skin conditions and dermatitises but these were not the focus on the manuscript. They will be the focus of subsequent publications. This is why most of the references to healing refers to “wound healing” – to distinguish wound healing from other forms of healing. The Ewing et al. (2023) publication on skin lesions is an excellent article about classifying skin lesions on a small sample of stranded dolphins and, while not directly pertinent to wound healing at sea, very important to pursue for my future dermatitis studies. Miller et al. (2011) reported that the orientation of collagen fibers in skin layers is often disordered and may vary with the need for flexibility, important considerations for the resumption of normal dolphin activities after wound healing, such as aerial behaviors, which require great skin flexibility. The Su et al. (2025) article reported new data on a subset of T cells that may bridge the innate and adaptive immune responses and certainly informs scant knowledge of dolphin adaptive immunity.

 

Reviewer 2: There are a few minor points listed below to consider:

Line 51: Should this be capitalized and italicized since it’s the Genus name of the bacteria? (i.e. Vibrio sp.)

Weaver response: Thank you. Yes, Vibrio should be capitalized. Done.

 

Reviewer 2: Lines 57-61: Run on sentence, consider splitting into two statements

Weaver response: Thank you. Yes, this long sentence was broken into shorter sentences.

 

Reviewer 2: Line 68: dermatitis is a very general term and kind very mild or severe, depending on underlying cause, so this sentence does not make the point intended by author.

Weaver response: Thank you. My intention is to show that dolphin skin conditions heal without scarring whereas significant human skin conditions, like acne and chickenpox, heal to clinically-troublesome atrophic scars. I replaced the word dermatitis.  

 

Reviewer 2: Line 101: “whose” should be replaced or sentence changed.

Weaver response: Thank you. I changed “whose” to “its.”

 

Reviewer 2: Line 125: the words in parentheses are not types of dermatitis so this is confusing. Also, paralysis and seizures are not skin specific so should be tallied/described as separate data points.

Weaver response: Thank you. I revised this to list the physical conditions featured in the 14 volumes of the Faithful Canvas collection.

 

Reviewer 2: Line 128: Is this paper providing different data than the referenced manuscript?

Weaver response: Thank you. Partially. The macroscopic markers discussed in the manuscript are reported in full detail in the 14-volume collection of healing histories and scar searches of the 2500-page Faithful Canvas collection (Citation [12]). There is a photo on every page illustrating aspects of healing and scarring.

 

Reviewer 2: Line 303: Is this a complete sentence? “In dolphins, a key aquatic adaptation is that the 303 outer layers of flattened keratinocytes are incompletely cornified or keratinized [115] but 304 see [39].”

Weaver response: Thank you but I am unclear about this. The sentence in question reads “In dolphins, a key aquatic adaptation is that the outer layers of flattened keratinocytes are incompletely cornified or keratinized [115], but see [39].”

 

Reviewer 2: Line 335: Maybe exchange “sloughing” with “exfoliative”

Weaver response: Thank you. Exfoliation is the shedding of normal cells so the term exfoliation is technically comparable to sloughing. However, this article’s intended audience includes dolphin researchers, for whom the term sloughing is the convention.

 

Reviewer 2: Line 1805-1809: In lower vertebrates in addition to teleost fish (amphibians, reptiles) and also invertebrates, melanin, melanization, and melanomacrophages are vital to immune function and healing. Consider adding references and discussion points here.

Weaver response: Thank you. I revised the section on melanin to include references to teleost fish and invertebrates.

 

Reviewer 2: Line 1815: Consider revising this statement “the primary purpose of inflammation”

Weaver response: Thank you. Revised.

 

Reviewer 2: Table 2 could be condensed and edited for more impact. As it is presented, it is difficult to read.

Weaver response: Thank you. The text was condensed and it should be easier to read when formatted in its landscape orientation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author Ann Weaver,

Congratulations on your manuscript. I found it very interesting with an unusually rich longitudinal dataset documenting macroscopic wound-healing markers in free-ranging bottlenose dolphins. The topic is timely, relevant, and underrepresented in the literature. The work has clear potential scientific value, but several sections would benefit from clarification, methodological strengthening, transparency, and reduction of redundancy to greatly improve its impact.

Below, I provide specific, line-referenced comments to advise on some improvements.

> Line 12–18: This strong claim should be qualified; the manuscript later notes a documented case of infection (Lines 191–198). Please, adjust the wording to acknowledge exceptions.

> Lines 52–56: Some stranded dolphins exhibit chronic dermal lesions. Clarify whether the statement refers only to dolphins observed alive at sea.

> Lines 63–108: The introduction contains extensive contextual information on human vs. dolphin healing, dolphin cognition, sleep physiology, respiratory efficiency, etc. This material, while interesting, dilutes the central aim of the study.
I suggest condensing or moving non-essential background (e.g., cognition, sleep, mating systems) to a separate subsection or supplementary material. Reinforce the explicit research question earlier in the Introduction.

> Lines 56-57: Please, include also a consideration of the marine environment parameters as a factor that supports the healing.

> Lines 118–121: Specify vessel distance, camera type, and sampling frequency to clarify data reliability.

> Lines 118–137 describe the long-term observation, but do not clearly define:

• criteria for selecting usable photographs;

• how pigment patterns were quantified;

• how wound age was determined when not precisely known;

• sources of measurement error (light, angle, turbidity).

Without these details, reproducibility is limited. I suggest adding a dedicated “Methods” section standardizing wound classification, photographic criteria, and limitations.

> Lines 155–158: The definitions are helpful; however, consider adding simple schematic diagrams in the main text for clarity.

> In several places, macroscopic pigment changes are directly linked to underlying immune phases without sufficient explanation of inferential steps.
Examples:

• Lines 31–36 (“macroscopic markers… reflect immune phases of inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling”).

• Lines 34–35 (“This is the first study to link macroscopic markers… to underlying histology”).

These statements require clearer justification or qualification. I suggest indicating explicitly whether these conclusions come from direct comparison with histological studies or remain hypotheses supported by correlational evidence.

> Several sentences imply that dolphin healing processes are “extraordinary,” “unique,” or “superlative.”
Examples:

• Lines 69–77 (claims of superlative healing, often based on earlier publications).

• Lines 270–284 (extensive description of cetacean skin uniqueness).

I suggest emphasizing measurable, evidence-based aspects rather than general superlatives; clarify which contributions are specifically novel in this manuscript vs. confirmed by previous research.

> Lines 130–137 reference a glossary and multiple figures but do not clearly explain how terminology (“gnarly wounds,” “surgical wounds,” etc.) maps onto standard wound-healing terminology used in comparative dermatology. I suggest standardizing terms or providing consistent cross-references to established wound-classification systems.

> Lines 217–227: The wide range of healing times across studies deserves a short comment on methodological variability among sources (biopsy vs. shark bites vs. propeller wounds).

> Lines 260–266: Good clarification, but you might add whether wound depth was estimated visually or inferred from tissue extrusion (e.g., presence of blubber, Lines 429–431).

> Lines 375–379: It would be useful if you could strengthen the argument by briefly explaining how dolphins compensate for the absence of follicular stem cells during reepithelialization.

> Lines 435–484: This section is interesting but very long relative to its empirical relevance. Condensing it would improve focus.

> Lines 498–516: As these observations derive from a different species (T. aduncus), specify whether similar behaviors have been observed or suspected in T. truncatus.

> Minor editorial issues:

• Ensure consistency in units (mm vs. inches; both appear in Lines 260–264);

• Some paragraphs exceed one page length; breaking them would improve readability;

• Several citations appear in long clusters; grouping by theme may help.

> A notable omission in the manuscript is the absence of a conservation-oriented perspective. Given that the study focuses on free-ranging marine mammals (species routinely exposed to anthropogenic threats such as vessel strikes, entanglement, habitat degradation, and pollution), it is increasingly anachronistic to present biological or physiological findings without situating them within their broader conservation context. Integrating even a brief discussion on how the findings contribute to or could be applied within contemporary marine mammal conservation frameworks would significantly strengthen the manuscript and align it with current expectations in marine biology and wildlife health research.

Author Response

Reviewer3 Comments and Weaver Responses

Dear Author Ann Weaver,

Congratulations on your manuscript. I found it very interesting with an unusually rich longitudinal dataset documenting macroscopic wound-healing markers in free-ranging bottlenose dolphins. The topic is timely, relevant, and underrepresented in the literature. The work has clear potential scientific value, but several sections would benefit from clarification, methodological strengthening, transparency, and reduction of redundancy to greatly improve its impact. Below, I provide specific, line-referenced comments to advise on some improvements.

 

Reviewer 3: Line 12–18: This strong claim should be qualified; the manuscript later notes a documented case of infection (Lines 191–198). Please, adjust the wording to acknowledge exceptions.

Weaver response: Thank you. I revised the wording.

These strong claims referenced in the Simple Summary summarize dolphin publications about healing. These are qualified throughout the manuscript; I believe the instructions for the Simple Summary preclude citations as it is designed for the lay reader. It is commonly reported that free-ranging dolphin wounds do not become infected. The text of the manuscript shows only two possible exceptions to infection.

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 52–56: Some stranded dolphins exhibit chronic dermal lesions. Clarify whether the statement refers only to dolphins observed alive at sea.

Weaver response: Thank you. Done.

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 63–108: The introduction contains extensive contextual information on human vs. dolphin healing, dolphin cognition, sleep physiology, respiratory efficiency, etc. This material, while interesting, dilutes the central aim of the study. I suggest condensing or moving non-essential background (e.g., cognition, sleep, mating systems) to a separate subsection or supplementary material. Reinforce the explicit research question earlier in the Introduction.

Weaver response: Thank you. I shortened the text.

It seems to me that this information establishes a context for the central aim of the study, which was to generate as much detail about the unassisted healing processes and timeframes as the data across a 20 year study provided and show the connection with immune phasing. I wanted the empirical evidence to test the claims about extraordinary rapidity and completeness of dolphin healing at sea (i.e., is it truly out of the ordinary?) because most were really small samples. However, addressing that challenge is not the focus of this article. The purpose of the study is to highlight the macroscopic markers of healing at sea and show their connection to immune phases.

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 56-57: Please, include also a consideration of the marine environment parameters as a factor that supports the healing.

Weaver response: Thank you. Marine environment parameters as factors that support healing are listed in the section 1.7. Natural Antimicrobials

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 118–121: Specify vessel distance, camera type, and sampling frequency to clarify data reliability.

> Lines 118–137 describe the long-term observation, but do not clearly define:

• criteria for selecting usable photographs;
• how pigment patterns were quantified;
• how wound age was determined when not precisely known;
• sources of measurement error (light, angle, turbidity).

Without these details, reproducibility is limited. I suggest adding a dedicated “Methods” section standardizing wound classification, photographic criteria, and limitations. Without these details, reproducibility is limited. I suggest adding a dedicated “Methods” section standardizing wound classification, photographic criteria, and limitations.

Weaver response: Thank you. I appreciate the chance to elaborate on the field work behind the collection of healing histories addressed in this paper. I modified the “2. Methods and Materials” section by adding the following.

“Vessel distance to dolphins ranged from next to at the boat to several hundred yards away; however, data for healing histories and scar searches were collected from high quality photos taken with a long lens generally when dolphins were 0-3 boat lengths (0-60 feet) away. The criterion for selecting usable photographs was choosing those that provided the clearest illustration of changes across healing. Pigment patterns were quantified during the assembly of each healing history; as histories accumulated, data verifying the pigment patterns accumulated. Each dolphin’s healing history was written based on a complete perusal of that dolphin’s entire sampling history and every photograph I had taken of the dolphin. Pigment patterns and other patterns were named and described as they emerged during the derivation of each healing history. When wound age was unknown, I did not estimate wound age; I provided days since I had first seen the wound. Potential sources of measurement error included poor quality photos, low light, and photos that were not precisely perpendicular to the body location of the wound; these were excluded from healing histories. Turbidity was not an issue because all photos are based on the visible parts of the dolphin’s body when it surfaced to breathe.” With respect to standardizing wound classification, I have written and illustrated an extensive glossary with photos to fully define the terms I needed to standardize aspects of unaided healing. Is the expectation that the glossary included with the Faithful Canvas collection should be part of this article as supplemental material?

 

Reviewer 3: In several places, macroscopic pigment changes are directly linked to underlying immune phases without sufficient explanation of inferential steps.
Examples:

• Lines 31–36 (“macroscopic markers… reflect immune phases of inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling”).
• Lines 34–35 (“This is the first study to link macroscopic markers… to underlying histology”).

These statements require clearer justification or qualification. I suggest indicating explicitly whether these conclusions come from direct comparison with histological studies or remain hypotheses supported by correlational evidence.

Weaver response: Thank you. I modified the abstract as requested.

Lines 31-36 are in the abstract, which was concise to meet the journal’s word limit. I agree with you that these statements require clearer justification or qualification, which is the presented in the result section and explained in the discussion. Thank you for suggesting that I explicitly indicate whether these conclusions come from direct comparison with histological studies or remain hypotheses supported by correlational evidence.

 

Reviewer 3: Several sentences imply that dolphin healing processes are “extraordinary,” “unique,” or “superlative.”
Examples:

• Lines 69–77 (claims of superlative healing, often based on earlier publications).
• Lines 270–284 (extensive description of cetacean skin uniqueness).

I suggest emphasizing measurable, evidence-based aspects rather than general superlatives; clarify which contributions are specifically novel in this manuscript vs. confirmed by previous research.

Weaver response: Thank you. Text was modified as suggested.

I agree! We should emphasize measurable, evidence-based aspects. There are many publications on adaptations of cetacean skin (measurable). However, the scant literature on dolphin healing at sea without medical intervention emphasizes “extraordinary” dolphin healing despite small samples. I question these superlative conclusions, which is why I did this study. The few directly-pertinent studies published to date confirm the Faithful Canvas contributions and vice versa. It is an important and fruitful start.

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 130–137 reference a glossary and multiple figures but do not clearly explain how terminology (“gnarly wounds,” “surgical wounds,” etc.) maps onto standard wound-healing terminology used in comparative dermatology. I suggest standardizing terms or providing consistent cross-references to established wound-classification systems.

Weaver response: Thank you. I explain and illustrate how my standardized terms map onto wound healing in the results.

I have not explained how my standardized wound-healing terminology maps onto comparative dermatology because this article focuses on cutaneous wounds, not the lesions of dermatitis (will be addressed elsewhere).

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 217–227: The wide range of healing times across studies deserves a short comment on methodological variability among sources (biopsy vs. shark bites vs. propeller wounds).

Weaver response: Thank you. I added a short comment explaining sources of methodological variability.

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 260–266: Good clarification, but you might add whether wound depth was estimated visually or inferred from tissue extrusion (e.g., presence of blubber, Lines 429–431).

Weaver response: Thank you. Clarified.

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 375–379: It would be useful if you could strengthen the argument by briefly explaining how dolphins compensate for the absence of follicular stem cells during reepithelialization.

Weaver response: I would love to but nobody knows how they compensate naturally. I modified the sentence.

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 435–484: This section is interesting but very long relative to its empirical relevance. Condensing it would improve focus.

Weaver response: Thank you. I have reduced its word count by about half.

 

Reviewer 3: Lines 498–516: As these observations derive from a different species (T. aduncus), specify whether similar behaviors have been observed or suspected in T. truncatus.

Weaver response: Thank you. I clarified that this was a first-time observation.

 

Reviewer 3: Minor editorial issues:

• Ensure consistency in units (mm vs. inches; both appear in Lines 260–264);
• Some paragraphs exceed one page length; breaking them would improve readability;
• Several citations appear in long clusters; grouping by theme may help.

Weaver response: Thank you. I use both metric and the US measuring system because this is an international journal. I have reduced long paragraphs. Citations are grouped by theme.

 

Reviewer 3: A notable omission in the manuscript is the absence of a conservation-oriented perspective. Given that the study focuses on free-ranging marine mammals (species routinely exposed to anthropogenic threats such as vessel strikes, entanglement, habitat degradation, and pollution), it is increasingly anachronistic to present biological or physiological findings without situating them within their broader conservation context. Integrating even a brief discussion on how the findings contribute to or could be applied within contemporary marine mammal conservation frameworks would significantly strengthen the manuscript and align it with current expectations in marine biology and wildlife health research.

Weaver response: Thank you. I have added sentences about how the healing histories and their standardized terms provide tools to track healing against conservation challenges to the abstract and discussion.

Ann Weaver