Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- There is critical issue with this paper since a major part of its content deals with available information in the literature. We recommend to authors to summarize the Material and Methods section (L112-133, L180-204, etc.) and keep only work done to produce results. Not relevant data and subsections can be used to elaborate a review paper. 

- Overall, the English of the manuscript should be significantly revised. 

- The Abstract is not well balanced and should be re-written since the objective, methodology as well as the key obtained results are not clear. Also, in Line 37: "and vice versa" to be removed from the abstract. 

- Keywords should be revised. 

- In research paper, we do not report any figure in the Introduction section. Thus, Figure 1 should be deleted or removed to Material and Methods if justified. 

- In 4 lines (L49-L52), authors reported 11 references!!! Is this normal ??

- The titles of figures are unsuitable and do not illustrate the content. Also, some figures (e.g. Figure 5 reported not necessary details and data!!). I suggest that authors refer to previous scientific papers to revise Figures titles. 

- The Introduction section lacks a clear justification of the work carried out by authors!

- Large content of subsection 2.1 in Materials and Methods is a state of art and can not be in this section. We recommend to check this content and start this subsection from line 134. 

- We do not understand the total reported in L207!!

- Authors should focus on reporting only relevant scheme of collecting samples, main treatments and analysis applied to seeds. We found a lot of details in Material and Methods that will confuse readers...

- Why carbonization was carried out in this work ?? After justification, please add the reference of the applied method. 

- The term "baked" in line 247 is not suitable. To change. 

- It's necessary to report the subsection 3.1 in "Results"? In our understanding, this is not clear and not well structured. 

- Conclusion should be summarized and state practical recommendations !

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English should be improved. 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

 

Quality of English Language

( ) The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.
(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1

- There is critical issue with this paper since a major part of its content deals with available information in the literature. We recommend to authors to summarize the Material and Methods section (L112-133, L180-204, etc.) and keep only work done to produce results. Not relevant data and subsections can be used to elaborate a review paper. 

Thanks! We simplified particularly 180-204 to the minimum required in material and methods. The previous one 112-133 was transferred from material an methods to introduction as it was suggested by other reviewers and rewritten

2

- Overall, the English of the manuscript should be significantly revised. 

Ok. Entirely revised

3

- The Abstract is not well balanced and should be re-written since the objective, methodology as well as the key obtained results are not clear. Also, in Line 37: "and vice versa" to be removed from the abstract. 

Many thanks! We have entirely rewritten the abstract following your advise.

4

- Keywords should be revised. 

We revised keywords as follows: Date palms; Phoenix canariensis; Archaeobotany; Bayesian inference; Canary Islands; Taxonomic identification; Carbonization; Morphometrics

5

- In research paper, we do not report any figure in the Introduction section. Thus, Figure 1 should be deleted or removed to Material and Methods if justified. 

We respectfully maintain that Figure 1's current placement is optimal for establishing the contextual framework of Phoenix diversity in the Canary Islands, which underpins our archaeological seed identification methodology. While we carefully considered relocating the figure to the Methods section, we believe its present position better serves readers by providing essential background information and foundational hypotheses that inform the subsequent analytical approach. The figure's early placement enables readers to visualize the taxonomic complexity that motivates our research design.

6

- In 4 lines (L49-L52), authors reported 11 references!!! Is this normal ??

We understand the concern regarding citation density. However, these lines address the critical baseline knowledge of Phoenix canariensis and Phoenix dactylifera distribution and ecology, where multiple independent research groups have made significant contributions. Each cited work provides unique and essential data supporting our understanding of the species' natural history. Given the foundational nature of this information for our study, we believe it is important to comprehensively acknowledge the substantial body of work that has established these findings.

7

- The titles of figures are unsuitable and do not illustrate the content. Also, some figures (e.g. Figure 5 reported not necessary details and data!!). I suggest that authors refer to previous scientific papers to revise Figures titles. 

We have entirely rewritten all figure captions considering your suggestions

8

- The Introduction section lacks a clear justification of the work carried out by authors!

This section has been revised in order to clarify this issue

9

- Large content of subsection 2.1 in Materials and Methods is a state of art and can not be in this section. We recommend to check this content and start this subsection from line 134. 

Many thanks, following your suggestions and those of other reviewers we moved this section to a more appropriate place outside of material and methods.

10

- We do not understand the total reported in L207!!

Many thanks! We have rewritten this paragraph in order to improve the distinction between sample and the number of seeds integrating each sample

Our comprehensive study analyzed 1,096 seed samples comprising 982 modern, 103 archaeological, and 11 fossilized samples. Each sample comprised 15 individual seeds in the case of modern specimens, rarely 10, whereas archaeobotanical and fossil samples contained a smaller and more variable number of seeds. This variability resulted in an approximate average of 10 seeds per sample, with a total of 10,066 seeds analyzed—9,336 of which originated from the 982 modern samples.

11

- Authors should focus on reporting only relevant scheme of collecting samples, main treatments and analysis applied to seeds. We found a lot of details in Material and Methods that will confuse readers...

Thanks! This section was revised following your suggestions and those of the three other reviewers.

12

- Why carbonization was carried out in this work ?? After justification, please add the reference of the applied method. 

We modified the introductory paragraph to set clearly the reasons:

Because the archaeological seeds recovered presented symptoms of carbonization, to comprehensively assess the impact of carbonization on P. canariensis seed morphology, an experimental protocol was developed utilizing microwave-assisted carbonization

13

- The term "baked" in line 247 is not suitable. To change. 

Thanks, done

14

- It's necessary to report the subsection 3.1 in "Results"? In our understanding, this is not clear and not well structured. 

Thanks! Yes it is. To establish a robust framework for identifying archaeobotanical Phoenix seed specimens, we first examine the dimensional and morphological variation observed in modern reference samples. This analysis provides the necessary baseline for comparative assessment, enabling the application of probabilistic and agglomerative clustering methods to determine the taxonomic identity of the archaeological seeds

15

- Conclusion should be summarized and state practical recommendations !

This section was revised following your suggestions and those of the three other reviewers.

16

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English should be improved. 

Thanks we revised the entire text.

Submission Date

16 December 2024

Date of this review

30 Dec 2024 10:30:36

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: The title accurately and comprehensively reflects the study. The emphasis on methodological approaches and key findings is particularly impressive.

Abstract: The abstract clearly states the purpose, methods, and findings of the study. However, the final section of the abstract could place greater emphasis on the practical applications of the results.

Literature: The introduction positions the study well within the literature and clearly highlights its originality.

Gaps: The gaps in the literature are effectively identified. However, introducing subheadings in the introduction could make the topic presentation clearer.

Method Details: The methods used are presented in a clear and replicable manner. However, providing more detailed explanations about the accuracy rates of the equipment used would be beneficial.

Data Analysis: The data analysis section is detailed, and the use of the dissimilarity index appears to be a sound methodological choice.

Presentation of Findings: The findings are presented clearly and logically. Graphs and tables effectively support the results.

Link to Literature: The findings are well-connected to similar studies in the literature.

Limitations: The limitations of the study have been discussed, but further elaboration could be beneficial. For instance, the limitations related to sample size could be emphasized more.

Suggestions: Recommendations for future research are clearly provided.

Conclusion: The conclusions summarize the main findings of the study clearly. However, the conclusion section is somewhat brief and could provide a broader perspective on practical applications. The practical use of the findings could be highlighted further.

General Suggestions Add details to the introduction and conclusion sections to strengthen the practical perspective. Clearly explain the choice and rationale of the statistical approaches used in the materials and methods section. Discuss the contribution of the findings to the literature in a broader context in the discussion section.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.
( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1

Title: The title accurately and comprehensively reflects the study. The emphasis on methodological approaches and key findings is particularly impressive.

Many thanks!

2

Abstract: The abstract clearly states the purpose, methods, and findings of the study. However, the final section of the abstract could place greater emphasis on the practical applications of the results.

Many thanks! We added this sentence.

These findings have significant implications for understanding pre-Hispanic resource utilization patterns and can inform contemporary conservation strategies and sustainable management practices for Phoenix populations. Moreover, our methodological framework provides a robust tool for archaeobotanical investigations in similar contexts where taxonomic complexity presents analytical challenges

3

Literature: The introduction positions the study well within the literature and clearly highlights its originality.

Many thanks!

4

Gaps: The gaps in the literature are effectively identified. However, introducing subheadings in the introduction could make the topic presentation clearer.

Many thanks!

We divided the introduction in six parts with the corresponding subheadings

5

Method Details: The methods used are presented in a clear and replicable manner. However, providing more detailed explanations about the accuracy rates of the equipment used would be beneficial.

Many thanks! The Mitutoyo calliper used reports ±0.02mm accuracy. We expanded details of the stereomicroscope and cameras used.

6

Data Analysis: The data analysis section is detailed, and the use of the dissimilarity index appears to be a sound methodological choice.

Many thanks!

7

Presentation of Findings: The findings are presented clearly and logically. Graphs and tables effectively support the results.

Many thanks!

8

Link to Literature: The findings are well-connected to similar studies in the literature.

Many thanks!

9

Limitations: The limitations of the study have been discussed, but further elaboration could be beneficial. For instance, the limitations related to sample size could be emphasized more.

Many thanks! We emphasized the importance of sample size as a limiting factor for an accurate identification.

10

Suggestions: Recommendations for future research are clearly provided.

Many thanks!

11

Conclusion: The conclusions summarize the main findings of the study clearly. However, the conclusion section is somewhat brief and could provide a broader perspective on practical applications. The practical use of the findings could be highlighted further.

Many thanks!

We approached this issue, highlighting practical applications in the conclusions

General Suggestions

12

Add details to the introduction and conclusion sections to strengthen the practical perspective.

Many thanks!

We approached this issue, highlighting practical applications in the introduction and conclusions sections

13

Clearly explain the choice and rationale of the statistical approaches used in the materials and methods section.

Many thanks!

We approached this issue by explaining the discretization process of continuous variables, the use of frequency counts within samples and the reason of using chi-square estimation of dissimilarities. We also explain the choice of Ward’s methodology for tree building.

 

14

Discuss the contribution of the findings to the literature in a broader context in the discussion section.

Many thanks!

We widely expanded the context and literature cited

 

 

Submission Date

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written and sheds light on the applications of image analysis techniques in the archaeological field for a species very important for the Canary Islands. I recommend publication after a careful review of the bibliography.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.
( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1

The manuscript is well written and sheds light on the applications of image analysis techniques in the archaeological field for a species very important for the Canary Islands.

Many thanks!

2

I recommend publication after a careful review of the bibliography.

Many thanks!

We followed your suggestions and carefully revised bibliography.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the article:

Bayesian Morphometric Analysis for Archaeological Seed Identification: Phoenix (Arecaceae) Palms from the Canary Islands (Spain)

By: Diego Rivera et al.

 

Summary

This article presents an integrated methodological approach, based on the combination of advanced seed morphometric analysis with Bayesian probabilistic frameworks for the identification of remains of Phoenix seeds in the Canary islands. While P. dactylifera and P. canariensis demonstrate comprehensive representation, P. reclinata and other species need further seed sample collection. Bayesian probabilistic analyses demonstrate P. canariensis dominance across the seven morphological types recognized in the Canary Islands with a high probability that this species predominated in the Canary Islands prior to European contact.

 

General comment

Most seeds analyzed belong to Phoenix canariensis and P. dactilifera. Some morphotypes are shared between species (lines 554-558). Factorial analysis may contribute to reduce the number of measurements, while in contrast, other morphological measurements could help to find differences between taxa.

Fruit images of P. canariensis var. porphyrococca in Figure 1 are quite poor. Better seed images should be shown. Additional seed images through the results sections are needed to illustrate some aspects (see later).

 

Comments by sections

Introduction

Add author name the first time latin name appears:

Phoenix canariensis H.Wildpret

Phoenix dactilifera L.

Define spheroid echinate phytolyts (why echinate?) do they correspond to seeds?

 

Materials and Methods

The three first paragraphs of Materials and Methods section may be better placed at the end of the introduction.

2.1. Geography and archaeological context

Please check and verify size markers in Figures 2 and 3. Do they correspond to the graph paper?

2.2. Phoenix Seed morphology

Line 188-190. Please comment on this:

Previous research has systematically addressed this complexity by comprehensively analyzing genus-wide sample collections to elucidate diagnostic morphological traits, particularly distinguishing P. dactylifera from P. canariensis [5].

Is it possible to distinguish between the seeds of P. dactylifera and P. canariensis? If yes, how? Or, in the contrary… do these taxa show overlapping phenotypes?

 

2.3. Morphometric seed analysis

Line 221: Please explain what are the two allometric relationships, and also the 14 qualitative attributes with 41 distinct states.

 

2.4. Experimental carbonization

Line 252: y = β1 + β2x + Є,

Please explain Є and verify that it is correct in the formula.

 

2.5. Data analysis

2.5.1. Classification of samples

Please explain “totalized dimensions (TD)”

Line 311 and following:

"Cell values were automatically computed as percentage frequencies, derived from the primary observational dataset. Specifically, each cell represented the proportion of seeds within a sample exhibiting parameters falling within the designated quantitative class or manifesting a particular qualitative character state."

Please make sure this transformation does not result in a loss of information, because different values may have the same proportions.

 

2.5.2. Identification of samples

Line 391, this sentence is not clear and needs further explanation:

Given the priori, taxonomic classification of most samples within each cluster (morphotype) and a sufficiently low proportion of unidentified samples, we can probabilistically infer that unclassified specimens originate from the same taxonomic group.

Replace?:

Given the priori,…

By:

Given the a priori,…

What are those “unidentified” samples?

Legend to Table 1:

Explain P(Hi,I)

 

Results

Please correct sub-section numbering

3.1. Diagnostic characters

Some sentences here belong to the Materials and Methods section and should be changed to this section and explained.

Lines 509 and following, this belongs to Materials and Methods:

The quantitative analysis focused on fundamental metrics including seed length, seed breadth, and volumetric dimensions calculated through a theoretical rectangular prism encapsulation method.

 Please move to Materials and Methods and explain theoretical rectangular prism encapsulation method.

Line 524:

Explain the following measurements in the materials and methods section: seed shape, apex morphology, base configuration, surface texture, striation patterns, micropyle positioning, ventral furrow characteristics, seed curvature, and wing morphology.

3.2. Morphotypes and species

Images representative of taxa and morphotypes should be given to illustrate some of the results. For example:

The morphological characteristics of Phoenix reclinata seeds reveal exceptional complexity. Seed samples from morphotypes 13–19 exhibit intriguing diversity, sparingly distributed and clustered intermixed with P. canariensis and P. roebelenii seeds. These specimens consistently present diminutive dimensions, measuring less than 1,000 mm³, which introduces notable taxonomic disambiguation challenges, particularly when contrasted 569 with the smaller seed types of P. canariensis.

 

The morphological profile of Phoenix dactylifera reveals extensive seed morphology variation, with significant overlap with P. canariensis across morphotypes 3 and 4. Distinc-tive surface characteristics include rough surfaces, transversal striation, prominent wrin-kles, and minimal longitudinal striation.

 

Phoenix canariensis exhibits canonical seed morphological characteristics: an ellipsoidal configuration with a truncated base, an obtuse (rarely truncated) apex, and a smooth surface. Additional defining features include longitudinal striations, a central micropyle, a U- or V-shaped ventral furrow, a straight and unbent orientation, and the absence of wings or crests.

Please give some images to illustrate these aspects.

 

3.2. Identification of Phoenix archaeological seed samples from the Canary Islands

Change to:

3.3. Identification of Phoenix archaeological seed samples from the Canary Islands

 

 

Discussion

Line 832, correct quote:

[Saro et al., 2019].

References

Please write all the references following the journal instructions.

 

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 4

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.
( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the article:

Bayesian Morphometric Analysis for Archaeological Seed Identification: Phoenix (Arecaceae) Palms from the Canary Islands (Spain)

By: Diego Rivera et al.

I wish to acknowledge on behalf of the authors your detailed review, that helped us to solve issues an to improve the overall quality of our paper

 

1

Summary

This article presents an integrated methodological approach, based on the combination of advanced seed morphometric analysis with Bayesian probabilistic frameworks for the identification of remains of Phoenix seeds in the Canary islands. While P. dactylifera and P. canariensis demonstrate comprehensive representation, P. reclinata and other species need further seed sample collection. Bayesian probabilistic analyses demonstrate P. canariensis dominance across the seven morphological types recognized in the Canary Islands with a high probability that this species predominated in the Canary Islands prior to European contact.

2

General comment

Most seeds analyzed belong to Phoenix canariensis and P. dactilifera. Some morphotypes are shared between species (lines 554-558). Factorial analysis may contribute to reduce the number of measurements, while in contrast, other morphological measurements could help to find differences between taxa.

Thanks! Yes of course.

3

Fruit images of P. canariensis var. porphyrococca in Figure 1 are quite poor. Better seed images should be shown. Additional seed images through the results sections are needed to illustrate some aspects (see later).

Many thanks!

We modified the Figure 1 adding images of further seed samples in order to improve the visibility of P. canariensis seed diversity

Comments by sections

Introduction

4

Add author name the first time latin name appears:

Phoenix canariensis H.Wildpret

Phoenix dactilifera L.

Thanks! Done

5

Define spheroid echinate phytolyts (why echinate?) do they correspond to seeds?

Thanks! We replaced the original text with this sentence:

In stark contrast to the pronounced morphological diversity observed in fruits and leaves, spheroid echinate phytoliths—microscopic silica structures formed within specific plant cell types such as epidermal and parenchyma cells, as well as in fruit tissues—demonstrate a remarkable uniformity and constancy.

Materials and Methods

6

The three first paragraphs of Materials and Methods section may be better placed at the end of the introduction.

Many thanks! Done

7

2.1. Geography and archaeological context

Please check and verify size markers in Figures 2 and 3. Do they correspond to the graph paper?

Many thanks! You were right! We corrected the scale markers

8

2.2. Phoenix Seed morphology

Line 188-190. Please comment on this:

Previous research has systematically addressed this complexity by comprehensively analyzing genus-wide sample collections to elucidate diagnostic morphological traits, particularly distinguishing P. dactylifera from P. canariensis [5].

Is it possible to distinguish between the seeds of P. dactylifera and P. canariensis? If yes, how? Or, in the contrary… do these taxa show overlapping phenotypes?

Yes it is. We added this sentence to the paragraph:

9. dactylifera and P. canariensis seeds can be reliably differentiated based on distinct morphological characteristics. P. dactylifera exhibits larger dimensions (21-27 × 8-9.5 × 7-8 mm) and presents a linear to elliptic-oblong contour and often a transversally striated or wrinkled surface, whereas P. canariensis is characterized by smaller dimensions (14-16 × 8.5-9.6 × 8-8.8 mm) and displays a predominantly ellipsoidal, rarely elliptic-oblong outline, and a longitudinally striate surface [5]

9

2.3. Morphometric seed analysis

Line 221: Please explain what are the two allometric relationships, and also the 14 qualitative attributes with 41 distinct states.

Ok. We added this explanation.

Seed morphological characterization employed a comprehensive 20-descriptor protocol: three quantitative metrics (length, breadth, depth), two allometric relationships (breadth / length ratio and depth / breadth ratio), one volumetric dimension (length × breadth × depth), and 14 qualitative attributes with 41 distinct states. The morphological characteristics of seeds include various shapes such as ovoid-conical-triangular, ellipsoidal, elliptic-oblong, cylindrical-linear, globose, hemispherical, and fusiform. The apex of the seed exhibits different forms, including obtuse, acute, retuse, oblique, and truncate being mucronate or not. Similarly, the seed base can be obtuse, acute, oblique, or truncate, being mucronate or not. The surface texture of seeds is classified as either smooth or rugose.

Regarding other surface features, seeds may present longitudinal striations. Wrinkling patterns can be irregular or transversely grooved. The position of the micropyle is either central or basal. The ventral groove varies in prominence and shape, appearing as either not pronounced, V-shaped, or U-shaped. Seed curvature is described as dorsoventrally bent or straight. Additionally, some seeds exhibit protuberances in the form of ridges and/or wings.

Although the parchment layer and seed color are relevant descriptors in botanical studies, they are not considered identifiable characteristics in archaeological seed samples due to degradation over time.

 

10

2.4. Experimental carbonization

Line 252: y = β1 + β2x + Є,

Please explain Є and verify that it is correct in the formula.

Thanks! We replaced Є with ε: The appropriate symbol for the error term, and added an explanation:

Post-carbonization, each seed was re-examined to quantify morphological transformations. Preliminary analyses revealed primary alterations in dimensional metrics and chromatic properties. A simple linear regression model (Figure 4, A, B, C) was developed to mathematically characterize seed metamorphosis, represented by the generalized formula y = β1 + β2x + ϵ, enabling quantitative documentation of carbonization-induced morphological variations. Where each term represents:

y: The dependent variable (outcome or response variable).

β1: The intercept (the value of y when x = 0).

β2: The slope coefficient (the change in y for a one-unit increase in x).

x: The independent variable (predictor or explanatory variable).

ε: The error term, which represents the unexplained variation in y that is not accounted for by the linear relationship with x. It accounts for randomness, measurement errors, or influences from other variables not included in the model. It ensures that the equation acknowledges real-world data variability rather than assuming a perfect deterministic relationship between x and y.

11

2.5. Data analysis

2.5.1. Classification of samples

Please explain “totalized dimensions (TD)”

Thanks! We replaced this term within the manuscript and the supplementary table 2 by: volumetric dimension (length × breadth × depth) (mm³)

12

Line 311 and following:

"Cell values were automatically computed as percentage frequencies, derived from the primary observational dataset. Specifically, each cell represented the proportion of seeds within a sample exhibiting parameters falling within the designated quantitative class or manifesting a particular qualitative character state."

Please make sure this transformation does not result in a loss of information, because different values may have the same proportions.

Many thanks we converted the text.

Cell values represent percentage frequencies of seeds within each defined parameter range or qualitative state, calculated from the primary dataset. Each cell indicates the proportion of seeds of this particular sample displaying specific quantitative or qualitative characteristics.

Previously we have extensively explained the rationale of the discretization process followed.

13

2.5.2. Identification of samples

Line 391, this sentence is not clear and needs further explanation:

Given the priori, taxonomic classification of most samples within each cluster (morphotype) and a sufficiently low proportion of unidentified samples, we can probabilistically infer that unclassified specimens originate from the same taxonomic group.

Replace?:

Given the priori,…

By:

Given the a priori,…

What are those “unidentified” samples?

Many thanks! This text required to be entirely rewritten. This is the new version:

Given that the taxonomic classification of most samples within each cluster or morphotype is known a priori, and that these samples originate from previously identified sources based on conventional vegetative and reproductive characters commonly used in Phoenix taxonomy, it can be probabilistically inferred that the unclassified specimens (i.e. archaeobotanical materials) within a clearly defined taxonomic cluster belong to the same taxonomic group. This inference is supported by the low proportion of unidentified samples within each cluster.

However, it is crucial to recognize that some morphological clusters may include samples from multiple species or varieties, thereby rendering them taxonomically heterogeneous. As a result, the botanical identification of archaeological samples, particularly within taxonomically diverse groups, requires a nuanced, quantitative approach that is grounded in probabilistic methodologies.

 

14

Legend to Table 1:

Explain P(Hi,I)

Thanks! It was erroneous, we replaced it with:

Prior probability p(Hi|I)

 

Results

15

Please correct sub-section numbering

3.1. Diagnostic characters

Some sentences here belong to the Materials and Methods section and should be changed to this section and explained.

Lines 509 and following, this belongs to Materials and Methods:

The quantitative analysis focused on fundamental metrics including seed length, seed breadth, and volumetric dimensions calculated through a theoretical rectangular prism encapsulation method.

 Please move to Materials and Methods and explain theoretical rectangular prism encapsulation method.

We modified the section and moved or simply deleted redundant texts. We redefined in more detail the “rectangular prism” which is a term no longer used.

16

Line 524:

Explain the following measurements in the materials and methods section: seed shape, apex morphology, base configuration, surface texture, striation patterns, micropyle positioning, ventral furrow characteristics, seed curvature, and wing morphology.

Many thanks. We explained the diversity of character-states in Material and Methods as suggested. But also took advantage of this text to furnish a summary of the features of the P. canariensis seeds, as follows

Qualitative morphological descriptors presented significant challenges due to archaeological seed preservation constraints. Nine morphological attributes emerged as particularly informative: seed shape (ellipsoidal in the case of P. canariensis var. canariensis and var. macrocarpa, and elliptic-oblong in P. canariensis var. porphyrococca), apex morphology (obtuse in all P. canariensis varieties), base configuration (truncate in all P. canariensis varieties), surface texture (smooth in the case of P. canariensis var. canariensis and var. macrocarpa, and smooth but occasionally rugose in P. canariensis var. porphyrococca), striation patterns (longitudinal striations in all P. canariensis varieties), micropyle positioning (central in all P. canariensis varieties), ventral groove characteristics (predominantly U-shaped in all P. canariensis varieties but also not pronounced or V-shaped), seed curvature (straight in all P. canariensis varieties), and wing morphology (ridges and wings missing in all P. canariensis varieties) (Table S2, Figure 1).

 

17

3.2. Morphotypes and species

Images representative of taxa and morphotypes should be given to illustrate some of the results. For example:

The morphological characteristics of Phoenix reclinata seeds reveal exceptional complexity. Seed samples from morphotypes 13–19 exhibit intriguing diversity, sparingly distributed and clustered intermixed with P. canariensis and P. roebelenii seeds. These specimens consistently present diminutive dimensions, measuring less than 1,000 mm³, which introduces notable taxonomic disambiguation challenges, particularly when contrasted 569 with the smaller seed types of P. canariensis.

 

The morphological profile of Phoenix dactylifera reveals extensive seed morphology variation, with significant overlap with P. canariensis across morphotypes 3 and 4. Distinc-tive surface characteristics include rough surfaces, transversal striation, prominent wrin-kles, and minimal longitudinal striation.

 

Phoenix canariensis exhibits canonical seed morphological characteristics: an ellipsoidal configuration with a truncated base, an obtuse (rarely truncated) apex, and a smooth surface. Additional defining features include longitudinal striations, a central micropyle, a U- or V-shaped ventral furrow, a straight and unbent orientation, and the absence of wings or crests.

Please give some images to illustrate these aspects.

Many thanks! We selected nine images representative of the different clusters in question conforming the new Figure 6.

18

3.2. Identification of Phoenix archaeological seed samples from the Canary Islands

Change to:

3.3. Identification of Phoenix archaeological seed samples from the Canary Islands

Ok. done

19

Discussion

Line 832, correct quote:

[Saro et al., 2019].

Thanks, done

20

References

Please write all the references following the journal instructions.

Thanks, done

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. We suggest to summarise the content of this paper. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could be improved. 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
( ) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. We suggest to summarise the content of this paper. 

Many thanks, we tried to be concise while assuming that other referees asked for extensive explanation.

2

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could be improved. 

We further revised the quality and academic tone of the English text.

 

Submission Date

16 December 2024

Date of this review

12 Feb 2025 15:25:11

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Could be accepted. The related revisions has been carried out.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1

Could be accepted. The related revisions has been carried out.

Many thanks for your comments

 

Submission Date

16 December 2024

Date of this review

20 Feb 2025 06:42:31

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the article:

Bayesian Morphometric Analysis for Archaeological Seed Identification: Phoenix (Arecaceae) Palms from the Canary Islands (Spain)

By: Diego Rivera et al.

 Second round of review

 Summary

In the first round of review, several aspects of the image presentation and statistical analysis were indicated. Although some images have been added and others modified for this second version, these are still issues that can be improved.

Table S1 contains a large and interesting database of palm seed samples available for the preparation of this article. Unfortunately, the article shows only a very small representation of these in the figures. There is a striking contrast between the detail and quality of Figures 2 and 3, which show seeds from archaeological samples, and the quality of the seed images in Figures 1 and 6. Figures with 10 or 20 well oriented seeds (with a ruler) should be presented for more of the species and varieties of interest in this study. The seed collection is not mentioned in the introduction. Have any articles been published on this collection and in particular more images of their seeds? If so, this should be specifically mentioned in the introduction.

The aspect of statistical analysis is also left unresolved, and although a factorial analysis was suggested in the first review, a precise description of the measurements made is required before this can be done.

The Methods are complex but they depart from a poor and not well defined set of measurements.

Other important aspects are listed in the following paragraphs.

 Abstract and Introduction

The issue of botanical authorship was also raised in the first round of review and has not been resolved. The authors' names must be given in the abstract for P. canariensis and P. canariensis var. canariensis. The latter is not present in the Kew database. P. canariensis var. porphyrococca appears in the text first on line 98. This variety is mentioned in the Kew database as a synonym of P. canariensis. Please explain this discrepancy.

 

Figure 1: The seeds and fruits are shown in a disordered manner. Sections D and E with mature palm specimens don't have much interest in relation to the article. Figures with 10 or 20 seeds (not fruits) in order, with a ruler, for each species and variety will be more informative. At least some seeds of P. dactylifera would improve the image.

Line 143: Diminutive size? Most seeds are larger than 1 cm.

The introduction is not well organized. The first section, Taxonomic Overview of Phoenix Palms, is very short and contains little information. It also overlaps with the fourth section, Taxonomic complexity and hybridisation. The introduction needs more coherence and information on this important aspect.

Materials and Methods

Section 2.2. Phoenix seed morphology

There is no description nor references for the qualitative morphological descriptors. Detailed definitions and references are needed for each of them (shape ellipsoidal and elliptic oblong, apex obtuse or acute, base configuration, surface texture, etc.) figures may be required to illustrate these concepts.

Please add a definition for TD in Table S2A. Is it Volumetric dimension mentioned on line 670? If so, why don’t call it VD?

Explain the difference between ellipsoidal and elliptic oblong in Table S2B.

Explain the difference between Acute and Obtuse in Table S2B. Indicate if there any quantitative measurement made for those two differences or just subjective appreciations?

Line 311:

Continuous parameters were categorized into four to six classes, facilitating an integrated quantitative–qualitative matrix analysis.

But in Tables S2A and S3 there are 20 classes. And, latter on, the data are divided in a variable number of classes (lines 428 to 440). In Figure 5 there are 21 classes. Please explain all this.

Line 335:

Give a number for this formula:

y = β1 + β2x + ϵ,

The data analysis section is very long and complicated. It is very unfortunate that such a complex analysis is based on three measurements and some non-quantitative, poorly defined data.

Results

3.1. Key diagnostic characters

It is doubtful that seed size may serve as a primary classificatory parameter as indicated:

Dimensional morphometrics emerged as a critical taxonomic discriminant, with seed size serving as a primary classificatory parameter

Because the morphotypes indicated in Table S2A are not specific of any variety or species, as indicated in the legend to this table:

“…bold blue type is used to mark those morphotypes with a high proportion of P. canariensis and red color type for those where P. dactylifera is predominant.”

Thus, there is no character found that could be a critical taxonomic discriminant.

The “Wildpret's Large Date Group" is mentioned 8 times in the article but the first mention is in the results section and no information about it is given in the introduction.

Line 673:

Large-volume morphotypes (1–2 and 6–8) were characteristic of P. 673 dactylifera specimens

You mean:

Large-volume morphotypes (1–2 and 5–8) were characteristic of P. 673 dactylifera specimens?

 

3.2. Morphotypes and species

This section is presented in a very confusing way. The figure shows seed images of 8 morphotypes corresponding to five species in a very disordered way. The seeds should be presented in a regular number (10 or 20 per morphotype) and in a similar orientation. Why not show examples for all species and morphotypes?

Discussion

Should be more ordered. Divide into sub-sections.

 

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 4

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the article:

Bayesian Morphometric Analysis for Archaeological Seed Identification: Phoenix (Arecaceae) Palms from the Canary Islands (Spain)

By: Diego Rivera et al.

 Second round of review

 Summary

In the first round of review, several aspects of the image presentation and statistical analysis were indicated. Although some images have been added and others modified for this second version, these are still issues that can be improved.

1

Table S1 contains a large and interesting database of palm seed samples available for the preparation of this article. Unfortunately, the article shows only a very small representation of these in the figures.

Thanks, however this is an specialized article and illustrating the whole range of Phoenix seeds diversity exceeds the original scope. If you want more information on this this can be accessed at among other references cited here:

Description of morphotypes and seed morphology of the species including analysis of type specimens where these were available.

5. Rivera, D., Obón, C., García, J., Egea, T., Alcaraz, F., Laguna, E., Carreño, E., Johnson, D., Krueger, R., Delgadillo, J., Ríos, S. Carpological analysis of Phoenix (Arecaceae): contributions to the taxonomy and evolutionary history of the genus. Bot J Linn Soc. 2014, 175, 74–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12164

Description of characters and states.

7. Martínez-Rico, M. El género Phoenix en jardinería y paisajismo: el caso de Phoenix canariensis [PhD. thesis]. Orihuela: Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche; 2017. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/dctes?codigo=134995 (accessed 6 February 2025).

2

There is a striking contrast between the detail and quality of Figures 2 and 3, which show seeds from archaeological samples, and the quality of the seed images in Figures 1 and 6. Figures with 10 or 20 well oriented seeds (with a ruler) should be presented for more of the species and varieties of interest in this study.

Thank you for your observation regarding the figures. While your suggestion to include more comprehensive seed imagery (10-20 well-oriented specimens with rulers for each taxon) has scientific merit, such presentation would exceed our space constraints in the current format. The implementation would necessitate a threefold increase in imagery per taxon to properly display ventral, dorsal, and lateral views.

The current seed images were deliberately selected for their efficiency in demonstrating morphological variability within a single frame, capturing multiple orientation perspectives simultaneously. For comprehensive seed morphology documentation beyond what is presented here, we respectfully direct you and other readers to the previously cited publications, which contain more extensive visual documentation of the taxa under discussion.

3

The seed collection is not mentioned in the introduction. Have any articles been published on this collection and in particular more images of their seeds? If so, this should be specifically mentioned in the introduction.

Many thanks for your correction! We added the requested information

With the exception of type specimens, fossils, and archaeological samples, all modern samples are preserved in the Herbarium UMH and the Spanish Palm Germplasm Bank at the Escuela Politécnica Superior of Orihuela, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche (Spain), initially funded by the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIA). The bank was established to facilitate the collection, propagation, preservation, and characterization of Phoenix species and other related palms. Currently, the Palm Germplasm Bank houses over 600 living accessions, representing 19 species and subspecies, as well as 4 interspecific hybrids [17](Obón, 2015). As of 2024, the National Phoenix Collection has documented 1,675 accessions, highlighting the extensive range of palm genetic resources stored in this repository.

4

The aspect of statistical analysis is also left unresolved, and although a factorial analysis was suggested in the first review, a precise description of the measurements made is required before this can be done.

Thank you for your continued feedback regarding our statistical analysis approach. We appreciate your suggestion to include factorial analysis, which we did initially perform. However, after careful evaluation, we found that while the factorial analysis produced visually interesting results, they were less effective than clustering methods for our specific identification purposes.

To clarify our methodological choices, we implemented hierarchical clustering using Ward's minimum variance algorithm, which proved more appropriate for our research objectives. The dendrograms generated through this approach facilitated more precise sample categorization than the factorial analysis, despite the relatively low variance explained by the primary axes in the latter.

Regarding the measurements data, we have deliberately chosen not to include the complete dataset as supplementary material due to intellectual property considerations and ongoing research developments. However, we are committed to scientific transparency and will gladly make the full measurement data available to interested researchers upon request following the publication of this paper.

We have included graphical summaries where samples are labeled according to their assigned clusters to illustrate the effectiveness of our chosen analytical approach. If the reviewer feels additional statistical details would strengthen the manuscript, we would be happy to include specific aspects of our analysis methodology in a revised supplementary section.

 

5

The Methods are complex but they depart from a poor and not well defined set of measurements.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer's assessment regarding the quality and definition of our measurement set. The measurements employed in this study were carefully selected based on established methodological protocols published in [cite specific references]. These protocols have been rigorously validated in multiple studies within our field and provide a solid foundation for the analytical approach we have taken.

Each measurement in our set was chosen for its specific diagnostic value in addressing our research questions. While the overall methodology may appear complex, this complexity stems from the multifaceted nature of the research problem rather than from any deficiency in the measurement framework. The integration of these measurements allows for a more comprehensive analysis than would be possible with a simpler approach.

We have ensured that all measurements are defined with sufficient precision to enable replication by other researchers. However, we acknowledge that additional clarification may enhance the manuscript's accessibility. We would be happy to expand the methodological section to include more detailed operational definitions of our measurements and their specific relevance to our research objectives. This protocol is adopted following the International Descriptors for Date Palm published in 2005 by the joint teams of IPGRI, INRAA, INRAM, INRAT, FEM, PNUD, later expanded by Rivera et al. [5 and in 2020] and illustrated by Martínez-Rico [7].

 

Other important aspects are listed in the following paragraphs.

 Abstract and Introduction

6

The issue of botanical authorship was also raised in the first round of review and has not been resolved. The authors' names must be given in the abstract for P. canariensis and P. canariensis var. canariensis. The latter is not present in the Kew database.

Many thanks! We corrected the Authorities in the abstract.

But in the case of P. canariensis var. canariensis it is an autonym. Allow me to explain that in botanical nomenclature, when a variety within a species is described, it automatically creates a type variety. The type variety is the variety that includes the type specimen of the species, which is the original specimen used to describe the species. This type variety is known as the autonym, and it bears the same name as the species itself.

For example, if a species is named Quercus robur and a variety within this species is described as Quercus robur var. pedunculata, the type variety would automatically be Quercus robur var. robur. This autonym is created to ensure that the type specimen is always associated with a variety name, even if no other varieties are explicitly described.

The rules governing this process are outlined in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), which provides the framework for naming and classifying plants, including the designation of type specimens and the creation of autonyms.

7

98. canariensis var. porphyrococca appears in the text first on line 98. This variety is mentioned in the Kew database as a synonym of P. canariensis. Please explain this discrepancy.

We appreciate the reviewer's attention to taxonomic precision. The discrepancy noted regarding Phoenix canariensis var. porphyrococca requires clarification.

Phoenix canariensis var. porphyrococca Vasc. & Franco was validly published in Portugaliae Acta Biologica, Série B, Sistemática 2: 313 (1948), as verifiable through the International Plant Names Index (IPNI). While this taxon is indeed listed as a synonym of P. canariensis H.Wildpret in the Kew database, our treatment reflects more recent molecular and morphological evidence that supports maintaining its varietal status.

This variety is distinguished from typical P. canariensis by several morphological characteristics, most notably its distinctive fruit coloration and glaucous leaves. It has a complex taxonomic history, having been previously described at the species level as Phoenix senegalensis. However, molecular investigations conducted by our research group in collaboration with Professor Sosa have demonstrated a clear phylogenetic relationship between var. porphyrococca and typical P. canariensis, while also indicating potential introgression with P. dactylifera.

This taxonomic position is thoroughly documented in two peer-reviewed publications:

1. Rivera, D., Obón, C., Alcaraz, F., Egea, T., Martínez-Rico, M., Carreño, E., Laguna, E., Johnson, D., Saro, I., Sosa, P., Naranjo, A., Salomone, F., & Pérez de Paz, P.L. (2019). Nomenclature and typification of Phoenix senegalensis and Fulchironia senegalensis (Arecaceae). Taxon, 68(2), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12051
2. Rivera, D., Obón, C., Alcaraz, F., Egea, T., Carreño, E., Laguna, E., Saro, I., & Sosa, P.A. (2014). The date palm with blue dates Phoenix senegalensis André (Arecaceae): A horticultural enigma is solved. Scientia Horticulturae, 180, 236–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.10.010

Our treatment thus reflects the current state of knowledge regarding this taxon, acknowledging both its relationship to P. canariensis and its distinct morphological and genetic characteristics that warrant recognition at the varietal level.

 

8

Figure 1: The seeds and fruits are shown in a disordered manner. Sections D and E with mature palm specimens don't have much interest in relation to the article. Figures with 10 or 20 seeds (not fruits) in order, with a ruler, for each species and variety will be more informative. At least some seeds of P. dactylifera would improve the image.

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion regarding Figure 1, though we respectfully maintain that the current presentation serves important scientific purposes. The apparent "disordered manner" of seed and fruit presentation is intentional, as it accurately represents the natural morphological variability within Phoenix canariensis, with particular emphasis on var. porphyrococca. This variability is central to our taxonomic arguments presented in the manuscript.

Sections D and E, showing mature palm specimens, are essential for providing contextual morphological information that complements the seed and fruit data. These images document key vegetative characteristics (including the distinctive glaucous leaves of var. porphyrococca) that, together with reproductive features, constitute the comprehensive morphological basis for taxonomic differentiation.

While we acknowledge that an ordered presentation of seeds with a standard measurement reference would provide certain comparative advantages, our current approach prioritizes demonstrating intraspecific variation, which is critical for addressing the taxonomic questions raised in this study. This approach aligns with similar methodology employed in seminal works on Phoenix taxonomy, such as those by Barrow (1998) and Rivera et al. (2014).

Regarding the inclusion of P. dactylifera seeds, we consciously limited Figure 1 to P. canariensis and its varieties to maintain conceptual focus. The morphological and taxonomic relationships between P. canariensis and P. dactylifera are indeed significant and have been addressed in our previous publications.

9

Line 143: Diminutive size? Most seeds are larger than 1 cm.

Many thanks it was a confusing sentence that referred to archeobotanical material in general. We replaced it with this other:

The recovery of seeds from archaeological sites has historically been challenging due to their typically small size, often averaging less than 5 mm in length and frequently measuring around 1 mm or less. However, Phoenix seeds are notably larger, even those recovered from sites in the Canary Islands. Systematic sampling efforts have successfully yielded carbonized date seeds from several sites in Gran Canaria, including La Cerera, Guayedra, El Tejar, Lomo los Melones, Cueva Pintada, and Lomo de los Gatos. Similar findings have been documented in La Gomera at El Alto del Garajonay, La Cañada de la Gurona, and Sobrado de los Gomeros. In contrast, Tenerife has seen more limited representation, with notable finds at Cueva de la Higuera Cota Tegueste.

10

The introduction is not well organized. The first section, Taxonomic Overview of Phoenix Palms, is very short and contains little information. It also overlaps with the fourth section, Taxonomic complexity and hybridisation. The introduction needs more coherence and information on this important aspect.

Many thanks! We agree with you that it was necessary to expand the information.

11

Materials and Methods

Section 2.2. Phoenix seed morphology

There is no description nor references for the qualitative morphological descriptors. Detailed definitions and references are needed for each of them (shape ellipsoidal and elliptic oblong, apex obtuse or acute, base configuration, surface texture, etc.) figures may be required to illustrate these concepts.

Many thanks! References were added.

12

Please add a definition for TD in Table S2A. Is it Volumetric dimension mentioned on line 670? If so, why don’t call it VD?

Yes it is. We had corrected it, but we failed to upload the corrected version of Table S2. We will upload the corrected version with the requested definitions.

13

Explain the difference between ellipsoidal and elliptic oblong in Table S2B.

Thanks! Done

14

Explain the difference between Acute and Obtuse in Table S2B. Indicate if there any quantitative measurement made for those two differences or just subjective appreciations?

Thanks. Explanation added as a footnote.

15

Line 311:

Continuous parameters were categorized into four to six classes, facilitating an integrated quantitative–qualitative matrix analysis.

Thanks, we reformulated this phrase to avoid misunderstanding:

Continuous variables were partitioned into four to six contiguous intervals or bins, which are then treated as discrete or categorical data.

16

But in Tables S2A and S3 there are 20 classes.

Thanks! These are the clusters obtained from the analysis or more precisely morphotypes.

17

And, later on, the data are divided in a variable number of classes (lines 428 to 440). In Figure 5 there are 21 classes. Please explain all this.

Figure 5 comprises 23 morphotypes not 21 although those numbered from 21 to 23 are not meaningful for identification purposes in terms of modern Phoenix species, because these do not contain any modern sample.

18

Line 335:

Give a number for this formula:

y = β1 + β2x + ϵ,

Many thanks! Done

19

The data analysis section is very long and complicated. It is very unfortunate that such a complex analysis is based on three measurements and some non-quantitative, poorly defined data.

Thank you for your feedback regarding the data analysis section. I respectfully disagree with the characterization that our analysis is based on 'poorly defined data.' As clearly articulated in the methodology section, our qualitative states are rigorously defined according to the framework established by [IPGRI, INRAA, INRAM, INRAT, FEM, PNUD. 2005] and further developed in our cited references [5 and 7]. The extensive nature of our analysis reflects our comprehensive response to previous referee recommendations, which specifically requested a more detailed exposition of our analytical approach.

While our study does incorporate three key quantitative measurements, these are complemented by qualitative data that, contrary to the referee's assessment, adheres to established protocols in the field. The depth of our analysis is necessary to thoroughly address the complexity of the phenomena under investigation and to satisfy the methodological transparency requested in earlier review rounds.

 

20

Results

3.1. Key diagnostic characters

It is doubtful that seed size may serve as a primary classificatory parameter as indicated:

Dimensional morphometrics emerged as a critical taxonomic discriminant, with seed size serving as a primary classificatory parameter

Because the morphotypes indicated in Table S2A are not specific of any variety or species, as indicated in the legend to this table:

“…bold blue type is used to mark those morphotypes with a high proportion of P. canariensis and red color type for those where P. dactylifera is predominant.”

Thus, there is no character found that could be a critical taxonomic discriminant.

Thanks. In order to prevent this confusion, we added above each morphotype description in supplementary Table 2 two rows with the percentages of P. canariensis and P. dactylifera among the modern seeds of each cluster. An we also expanded the differential information obtained from quantitative data in the manuscript.

21

The “Wildpret's Large Date Group" is mentioned 8 times in the article but the first mention is in the results section and no information about it is given in the introduction.

Thanks, we corrected this along the text. It is the var. macrocarpa H.Wildpret, which is displayed in Figure 1 and described in the introduction

22

Line 673:

Large-volume morphotypes (1–2 and 6–8) were characteristic of P. 673 dactylifera specimens

You mean:

Large-volume morphotypes (1–2 and 5–8) were characteristic of P. 673 dactylifera specimens?

Thanks. Not it is not “large”, we added this explanation: Although morphotype 5 contains predominantly P. dactylifera seeds, it cannot be considered of large volume, with 1200 mm³ on average it would be rather intermediate.

23

3.2. Morphotypes and species

This section is presented in a very confusing way. The figure shows seed images of 8 morphotypes corresponding to five species in a very disordered way. The seeds should be presented in a regular number (10 or 20 per morphotype) and in a similar orientation. Why not show examples for all species and morphotypes?

We appreciate the reviewer's concern regarding the organization of Figure 6. The purpose of this figure is to illustrate representative examples of different Phoenix seed morphotypes rather than to provide a fully standardized display of all species and morphotypes. The selection of specimens aims to highlight morphological diversity rather than numerical uniformity.

The irregular number and orientation of seeds reflect natural variation and allow for better visualization of shape and surface texture. Standardizing orientation and number would reduce the capacity to showcase their diversity. Additionally, while we acknowledge that not all Phoenix species and morphotypes are depicted, Figure 6 prioritizes those relevant to the study, with an emphasis on distinct and widely distributed morphotypes relevant for the aims of this research.

However, we recognize that the caption could be improved for clarity. To enhance readability and transparency, we will revise it to explicitly mention that the figure presents a selection of morphotypes rather than an exhaustive or uniform dataset.

 

24

Discussion

Should be more ordered. Divide into sub-sections.

 

 

 

Submission Date

16 December 2024

Date of this review

12 Feb 2025 10:08:12

 

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I strongly recommend that composite images of photographs showing each type of seed stored in the germplasm bank of the National Phoenix Germplasm Collection be made available to the public, and that the images be analysed using Figure J.

Author Response

Respopnses to reviewer:

I strongly recommend that composite images of photographs showing each type of seed stored in the germplasm bank of the National Phoenix Germplasm Collection be made available to the public, and that the images be analysed using Figure J.

Response:

We highly acknowledge this recommendation. In our work, we have followed the procedures described in the materials and methods section. For image analysis, we are currently using the Fiji distribution of ImageJ, as a standalone download of ImageJ2 is not yet available due to how the core ImageJ update sites are currently structured. Regarding the public availability of seed images in our collection, we are working to make these accessible in the upcoming revision through Phoenix_Spain.org.