Bioerosion Structures on Dinosaur Bones Probably Made by Multituberculate Mammals and Dermestid Beetles (Guichón Formation, Late Cretaceous of Uruguay)
Paulo Victor Luiz Gomes Da Costa Pereira
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsall the comments and suggestions are displayed in the file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Almost all suggestions were considered (please see attached file).
We improved and reordered the figures and text, highlighting and better pointing out some characters and emphasizing the presence of Machichnus bohemicus.
We include a taphonomic discussion comparing the materials from the different localities.
We only have a dissenting opinion regarding the comment in line 27: We think it may be important as background to give an overview of similar types of bioerosion in bones. That is why examples from the Cenozoic were also included.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Dear authors, congratulations on the work!
My main comments are relative to improve some figures and expand the discussion on the identification of some traces. For exemple, I was unsure about the identification of Cubicullum inornatus in 9924 specimen, its definatly similar, but both trace units depart from the proposed original morphology of the original Cubiculum inornatus. So lateral views of the trace casts, or drawings would be easy to follow. The same applies for the possible C. leve trace, which seems to be too deep relative to its width. All traces (including those not attributed to any ichnotaxa) should be treated independeltly, and independent from their identificatons the ecological implications are sound.
- There is na extra space in line 14.
- At line 56, as a suggestion, consider uniting this last phrase to the revious paragraph.
- Figure 1: The scale is 1 cm for all?
- Figure 2: Although it is na interesting image to see all traces in a single image. I would suggest to include single figures for each traces, or at least one more figure with more details on the traces. By the image we cannot appreciate the full morphology of the trace. For exemple a 'lateral view' of the traces casts would be important to understand proportions.
- Figure 5: Its not clear to me where is the traces in the first photo.
- Line 121: There is a discussion on specimen numbers for traces on the literature. But those specimen numbers are relative to the metacarpal fragment and to the caudal vertebra right. Maybe is worthy separating them in FC-DPI-9924 trace A and FC-DPI-9924 trace B.
- Line 121: It seems that the item 'Material.' is missing here.
- Line 122: the metacarpal was found associated with 9925 too and what is the bone elemnet of 9925?
- Line 132: There should be a blank line prior this, right?
- Line 156: I think is importante to treat all traces independetly, so a new section of 'pits' and other categories would be importante.
- Line 177: It would be interesting to see more closely the curved lines.
- Line 187: I think a proper image for this trace is worthy.
- Line 214: There is a blue 's' on the line.
- Line 240: Its worthy consider the 'buried hypothesis' as there is some evidence on extant termites and some fossil evidence (see Cunha et al. 2024)
References:
Cunha, L. S., Dentzien-Dias, P., & Francischini, H. (2024). New bioerosion traces in rhynchosaur bones from the Upper Triassic of Brazil and the oldest occurrence of the ichnogenera Osteocallis and Amphifaoichnus. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 69(1), 1-21.
Author Response
Most of the suggestions were considered (please see attached file).
We objectively consider the criticism of the presence of Cubiculum inornatum, and agree that such assignment is not possible with the available material. Therefore the material was assigned to Cubiculum isp.
We improved and reordered the figures and text, highlighting and better pointing out some characters, and emphasizing the presence of Machichnus bohemicus.
We introduced the new suggested bibliography.
We only have a dissenting opinion regarding the numbering of the materials from the Arroyo Malo village (FC-DPI-9924 and 9925). These are independent pieces that were found in the same site. They could be from the same individual and species, but this cannot be confirmed with certainty. That is why we understand that it is better to use that numbering.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript is quite well-done. Overall, I find it well-documented and convincingly argued. I am confident that the authors identified the bioerosion structures correctly, and I am very pleased to see their comparative ichnotaxonomic approach. Therefore, I have very little to add or critique. In fact, I just have a few suggestions about the grammatical structure of some words, which I included within the text in the attached pdf. Once these corrections have been made, I recommend its publication. My congratulations to the authors on completing such an interesting and well-done study!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
All corrections were co
All corrections were considered (please see attached file).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the authors' willingness to make the suggested and proposed changes.
I believe the manuscript can be published in its present form.
