Hand Musculature of the Common Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus): An Anatomical Study with Reference to the Rhesus Monkey (Macaca mulatta)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well written and well-presented. Furthermore, it fills a gap in the literature and may have direct implications in veterinary practice.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe simple summary fails to follow the acceptable standards of the English language that the remaineder of the text abides to. For example, in ln2 the text has a mistake: your either meant to write wounded during conflicts, or (less lileky due to conflicts)? Or in ln3 the ponit would be better raised if the text read "Tending these or such wounds..." Or in lns4-5 dissection of cadavers (and not dissections of cadavers) reads better (this is often used in other parts of the text. Furthermore, in the Introduction ln4 (human condition): what do you mean?
Author Response
For better orientation, the bony anatomy of the hand and arm should be shown at least in one illustration.
Answer: This is a good suggestion. We have added a skeletal figure of the antebrachium and hand at the right side of the Figures and have indicated with a black box what the exact position of the shown images is.
The innervation of the individual muscles should be mentioned at least in the overview table.
Answer: We would rather not opt to include the names of the nerves that are responsible for the innervation of each of the individual muscles in the table as we do not possess that information. In order to complement the table, we would have to translate information from other primate species to the common marmoset without knowing whether that is correct. Your question has given us the idear of performing a future study in which the innervation of the hand musculature is examined. Now that we have a good anatomical knowledge of the hand muscles, we can move on from here.
A schematic illustration summarizing your findings should be included for easier orientation.
Answer: We are not shure what is asked here. Do you mean a graphical abstract? Anyhow, we need some guidance. In our opinion, the table gives a good overview of the muscles that are present in the antebrachium and hand of the common marmoset. At this stage, we have decided not to create and include a schematic illustration as we haven’t performed functional or biomechanical analysis of the muscles.
TA2 should be used (https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/). If you decide to stay with TA1, this decision must be discussed.
Answer: In lines 139-140, line 144, line 646, we have now clearly mentioned that we used the second edition of the Terminologia Anatomica (TA2). We have been using the TA2 during the preparation of the manuscript. We have used the correct citation in the reference list.
There are some spelling errors (e.g., „m. palmaris longus muscle“). Please check the spelling carefully.
Answer: In line 499, the word “muscle” is redundant is has been removed. We have checked the spelling and found a typo in line 397 (“…and the. Lumbrical muscles…” should be “…and the lumbrical muscles…”), line 225 (Callithrx should be Callithrix).
The numbering of literature is wrong (e.g., 21 is NOT the Terminologia Anatomica)
Answer: In the text, we have three times referred to citation 21 of the reference list, which is the TA2. We think this is correct. We have double-checked the references and do not find any mismatch between the numbering in the tekst and the numbering of the reference list. Perhaps we misinterpret the question.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors performed layered dissections of both thoracic limbs from four common marmoset cadavers (eight limbs total). They provide a detailed, layer-by-layer description (dorsal and palmar antebrachium + hand, including intrinsic musculature and fibrous digital sheaths) accompanied by 8 multi-panel colour figures (macro and stereomicroscopic) plus a comprehensive Table 1 listing origin, insertion, and action of every muscle. They systematically compare their findings with the classic (but outdated) work of Beattie (1927), the recent marmoset chapter by Casteleyn & Bakker (2019), and especially the authors’ 2024 rhesus monkey hand paper. The discussion highlights several species-specific differences that are clinically and phylogenetically relevant. This is an excellent, high-quality descriptive anatomical study that fills a genuine and important gap in the literature. The work is thorough, beautifully illustrated, clearly written, and directly relevant to the veterinary care of a key biomedical research species. I particularly appreciate the careful selection of anatomical terminology. This is an increasingly rare quality in contemporary scientific articles. In this case, the authors tackled a primate, which presented an additional challenge.
I wish the authors congratulations on a very nice piece of work. It will be a valuable addition to the Veterinary Sciences special issues on exotic medicine and primate research.
Author Response
The authors performed layered dissections of both thoracic limbs from four common marmoset cadavers (eight limbs total). They provide a detailed, layer-by-layer description (dorsal and palmar antebrachium + hand, including intrinsic musculature and fibrous digital sheaths) accompanied by 8 multi-panel colour figures (macro and stereomicroscopic) plus a comprehensive Table 1 listing origin, insertion, and action of every muscle. They systematically compare their findings with the classic (but outdated) work of Beattie (1927), the recent marmoset chapter by Casteleyn & Bakker (2019), and especially the authors’ 2024 rhesus monkey hand paper. The discussion highlights several species-specific differences that are clinically and phylogenetically relevant. This is an excellent, high-quality descriptive anatomical study that fills a genuine and important gap in the literature. The work is thorough, beautifully illustrated, clearly written, and directly relevant to the veterinary care of a key biomedical research species. I particularly appreciate the careful selection of anatomical terminology. This is an increasingly rare quality in contemporary scientific articles. In this case, the authors tackled a primate, which presented an additional challenge.
I wish the authors congratulations on a very nice piece of work. It will be a valuable addition to the Veterinary Sciences special issues on exotic medicine and primate research.
Reply: Dear Reviewer, your encouraging words mean a lot to us. They support our feeling that anatomy still is important in these times of molecular studies. We will continue working on our primate topics. More is to come.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, Collijs et al. present an overview of the macroscopic anatomy of the hand muscles of Callithrix jacchus. This is a comprehensive and well-illustrated work. The quality of the dissections is high. The study is of great interest to scholars in the field of comparative anatomy and worth publishing.
Some aspects should be addressed before publication:
For better orientation, the bony anatomy of the hand and arm should be shown at least in one illustration.
The innervation of the individual muscles should be mentioned at least in the overview table.
A schematic illustration summarizing your findings should be included for easier orientation.
TA2 should be used (https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/). If you decide to stay with TA1, this decision must be discussed.
There are some spelling errors (e.g., „m. palmaris longus muscle“). Please check the spelling carefully.
The numbering of literature is wrong (e.g., 21 is NOT the Terminologia Anatomica)
Author Response
The simple summary fails to follow the acceptable standards of the English language that the remainder of the text abides to. For example, in ln2 the text has a mistake: your either meant to write wounded during conflicts, or (less lileky due to conflicts)? Or in ln3 the point would be better raised if the text read "Tending these or such wounds..." Or in lns4-5 dissection of cadavers (and not dissections of cadavers) reads better (this is often used in other parts of the text.
Answer: You are absolutely correct in stating that the simple summary might be too simple in its writing. We have rewritten some sentences in higher standard English, still using layman’s terms.
Furthermore, in the Introduction ln4 (human condition): what do you mean?
Answer: We mean the human anatomy, physiology, genetics etc. that make up the human being as it exists whith all of its peculiarities. We have changed “condition” to “body”, which in fact means the same but without any confusion.
