The Exceptional Presence of Megaloceros giganteus in North-Eastern Iberia and Its Palaeoecological Implications: The Case of Teixoneres Cave (Moià, Barcelona, Spain)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well-organized and provides good context for this record of Megaloceros.
There are a few minor issues with the English which can be easily corrected and I offer the following suggestions.
Line 54 - suggest inserting people after Neolithic
Line 104 - change spalaus to spelaeus
Line 136 - change calliper to caliper
Line 146 - suggested alternative wording: The MCA permits the representation of the structure by presenting ....
Line 161 - insert dentition so reads: advanced wear of the maxillary dentition
Table 2 caption - change compare to compared
Line 286 - remove of so reads: Besides the expressed buccal cingulum
Line 291 - can you provide a couple of examples of the morphometric characters of the maxilla in the specimen that are characteristic of Megaloceros
Line 293 to 295 - genera, species and subspecies need to be in italics
Line 303 - suggest changing succeeded to replaced
Line 306 - change to fossil remains are and: do not permit a possible subspecific
Line 313 - change to read: most often are associated with M. primigenius ...
Line 315 - possible alternative wording: these associated taxa are considered characteristic of the Mammuthus - .......
Line 357 - change address to addressed
Line 373 - possible alternative wording: habits that differ from browsing in Germany ....
Line 375 - possible alternative wording: Iberian Peninsula are mixed-feeders
Line 394 - change of to on so reads on the peninsula
Author Response
Many thanks for your opinion and comments about this manuscript. We have included all your remarks to it.
Reviewer 2 Report
Excellent manuscript. Happy that from time to time I have a paper to review with such high quality. The study of the material is well conducted, the data well analysed and the discussion and conclusions clear. I quite agree with all the discussion about the ecotone occupied by the species in the area and its relationship with the large herbivores´ community in the area.
I would just add that changes in the availability of minerals due to habitat changes has been also suggested as a driver for the extinction of this and other very large cervids. Indeed, I would say that the results also support this idea (the species living in an extreme environment considering their preferred habitats; pushed to grazing much more than in other regions; etc.) The authors may also comment on this, but it is not essential. The paper is already good enough.
Author Response
This is right but in this paper, we are not really discussing about the conditions of the extinction of Megaloceros but more about what it seems to be an extension of its territory during MIS3. We wanted to discuss the conditions of it, crossing the Pyrenees and evaluate its ecological requirements and flexibility.
We don’t feel that we have, for now, with only one specimen, the data to address this particular question.
Reviewer 3 Report
This report and discussion of a newly found specimen of Megaloceros is straight-forward and well presented. Though it is the first time I have seen it, it seems to have been thoroughly edited already. Nevertheless, I have made several editorial suggestions in the comments of the attached PDF. To be honest, I have little else to suggest for the improvement of this manuscript. The only thing that I would like to see is for the authors to make it very clear that the study is based on a single specimen and thus their conclusions might not capture the variation in the population. Otherwise, I say it is ready for publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Many thanks for all your comments that we have include in our manuscript. Here you can find answer to some of your comments from the annoted PDF file:
“The only thing that I would like to see is for the authors to make it very clear that the study is based on a single specimen and thus their conclusions might not capture the variation in the population. Otherwise, I say it is ready for publication.”
We make it clear several times in the manuscript that this study is based on only one bone and even conclude that more material will be needed in the future to better know the variability of these populations:
“In any case, the specimen recovered from Teixoneres Cave represents an exceptional finding, and more individuals will be required to discuss the role played by the giant deer in the ecosystems of Southern Europe during the Late Pleistocene.” L. 483-486
However, we have added a sentence in the abstract to emphasize this aspect :
“More specimens will be needed in the future to established the variability of the southern Megaloceros populations. » L . 26-27.
“Are these data presented here?”
Yes, there are. L. 313-318 :
“While the specimen from Teixoneres is very damaged, we were able to observe several characteristics typical of the genus Megaloceros. Besides the expression of buccal cingulum on all the teeth, most of the criteria are located on the P4 and the M3. The triangular internal fold on the P4, the elongation of the metacone of the M3 and its concave root were described as features of Megaloceros [66]. Also, the size of the teeth of the Teixoneres specimen falls within the variability of other Megaloceros population and exceeds the size of the contemporaneous red deer teeth”
In order to make it clearer we have reworded the sentence L. 319-321:
“These morphometric characters of the maxilla of the Teixoneres specimen allow it to be attributed without doubt to Megaloceros giganteus, the specimen of Teixoneres..”
Indeed, the morphological description of the maxillary and its metrical comparison with other Megaloceros and Cervus populations are the morphometrical data address in this sentence. The rewording of the sentence makes the connexion clearer here.
Reviewer 4 Report
Uzunidis and colleagues present an interesting study that adds to our understanding of the distribution and palaeoecology of Megaloceros giganteus in Europe. I feel this study is suitable for publication in Diversity and I think it will stimulate new research and discussion on the palaeobiology of Megaloceros giganteus. I have some comments and questions that I would like the authors to address:
11) In the abstract and on page 16 of the manuscript, the authors state that the Megaloceros specimen they describe from Unit IIa of Teixoneres Cave (which is dated between 35,000 and 37,000 cal BP) is the last known occurrence of this taxon in the Iberian Peninsula. However, on page 2, lines 49 – 50, the authors mention that “Jou Puerta (Asturias), dated between 36,665 and 30,275 cal BP, is the site that has yielded the most recent specimen(s)”. This information largely contradicts the assertion that the Megaloceros specimen from Teixoneres is the last known occurrence of this taxon in the Iberian Peninsula. The authors should address this discrepancy.
22) I think the authors should try to provide some information about how Unit IIa of Teixoneres Cave was dated. I know the authors provide a citation, but I think it would be useful for readers to have a brief explanation about how Unit IIa was dated. Also, I am curious why the authors did not attempt to date the Megaloceros specimen directly, given the significance this specimen has regarding the spatial and temporal distribution of this taxon in the Iberian Peninsula.
33) I suggest the authors provide more details on the multiple correspondence analysis they did. For example, what type of normalization was used in the analysis? This information is relevant not only for readers to replicate the analysis, but also in the interpretation of the results.
44) Was the dental microwear analysis done on the lingual or labial sides of the paracone and protocone?
55) Minor comments are indicated below:
On page 2, line 59: It looks like there is a word (or words) missing in this sentence: “Later, they faced with the arrival of the Neolithic”.
On page 6, line 171: I suggest changing “…phytoliths into the plants…” to “…phytoliths in the plants…”
On page 8, line 203: I suggest changing “…compare to other…” to “…compared to other…”
On page 10, line 234: “…herbivores species…” needs to be changed to “…herbivore species…”
On page 13, line 282: I suggest changing “…centroids of current grazers…” to “…centroids of extant grazers…”
On page 13, line 286: “…characteristic typical…” needs to be changed to “…characteristics typical…”
On page 13, line 286: I suggest changing “…Beside of the expressed buccal cingulum…” to “…Besides the expression of buccal cingulum…”
On page 13, line 290: “…specimen fall within…” needs to be changed to “…specimen falls within…”
On page 13, lines 294 - 295: Megaloceros giganteus ruffii and Megaloceros giganteus giganteus need to be written in italics.
On page 13, line 303: “…succeeded to M. g. ruffii…” needs to be changed to “…succeeded M. g. ruffii…”
On page 14, line 315: I suggest changing “…mainly escorted taxa…” to “…mainly accompanied taxa…”
On page 14, line 318: I suggest changing “…Peninsula very similar…” to “…Peninsula were very similar…”
On page 15, line 365: “…monocots-rich…” needs to be changed to “…monocot-rich…”
On page 15, line 370: The sentence “The error bars correspond to the standard deviation (+/- 1 SD)” needs to be deleted because the graph does not present error bars.
On page 15, line 371: I suggest changing “…centroids of current grazers…” to “…centroids of extant grazers…”
On page 15, lines 380 – 381: The sentence “…the dental microwear data can indicate a leaf feeding completed with the consumption of high monocotyledon grasses” needs to be rewritten because it is hard to understand. Are you trying to say that the dental microwear data suggests Megaloceros from these two sites was a leaf-feeder that complemented its diet with the consumption of tall monocotyledon grasses?
On page 16, line 417: I suggest changing “…a mixt of leaves…” to “…a mixture of leaves…”
On page 16, line 420: I suggest changing “…focus on soft…” to “…focused on soft…”
On page 16, line 423: I suggest changing “More specimen…” to “More specimens…”
On page 16, line 423: I suggest changing “…future to discuss…” to “future to test…”
On page 16, line 429: I suggest changing “Based on this fragment, we have…” to “Based on this fragment and analyses of published data…”
On page 17, line 438: I suggest changing “…south of the Pyrenees, it had to adapt…” to “…south of the Pyrenees, the evidence we presented suggests it had to adapt…”
Author Response
Thank you a lot for your great attention in the reading of our manuscript and for your comments.
“ In the abstract and on page 16 of the manuscript, the authors state that the Megaloceros specimen they describe from Unit IIa of Teixoneres Cave (which is dated between 35,000 and 37,000 cal BP) is the last known occurrence of this taxon in the Iberian Peninsula. However, on page 2, lines 49 – 50, the authors mention that “Jou Puerta (Asturias), dated between 36,665 and 30,275 cal BP, is the site that has yielded the most recent specimen(s)”. This information largely contradicts the assertion that the Megaloceros specimen from Teixoneres is the last known occurrence of this taxon in the Iberian Peninsula. The authors should address this discrepancy.”
This is right. The specimen of Teixoneres is the youngest of Catalunya and among the youngest in the Peninsula. We have corrected that aspect in the manuscript:
- In the abstract (l. 16): “. Dated between 35,000 and 37,000 cal BP, it is also among the youngest occurrence…”
- In the discussion (l. 432-433): “Dated between 35,000 to 37,000 cal BP, it is currently among the youngest M. giganteus fossil of the Iberian Peninsula.”
“I think the authors should try to provide some information about how Unit IIa of Teixoneres Cave was dated. I know the authors provide a citation, but I think it would be useful for readers to have a brief explanation about how Unit IIa was dated. Also, I am curious why the authors did not attempt to date the Megaloceros specimen directly, given the significance this specimen has regarding the spatial and temporal distribution of this taxon in the Iberian Peninsula.”
L. 94- 98 we add detail about the dating of the Unit IIa from Teixoneres :
“The most recent archaeological unit, Unit II, has been radiocarbon dated to 44,210 to 33,060 cal BP on the basis of seven bones, all located in the main cave (chamber X). Unit II was and separated into two subunits: IIa and IIb [23]. The analysis of three samples from Uunit IIa, which has yielded the remains of Megaloceros, is dated fromgive an age from 35,000 to 37,000 cal BP [24] and has yielded the remains of Meg-aloceros.”
I suggest the authors provide more details on the multiple correspondence analysis they did. For example, what type of normalization was used in the analysis? This information is relevant not only for readers to replicate the analysis, but also in the interpretation of the results.
L. 160-162 we add detail about the MCA analysis:
“analysis and 3) to avoid normalised the dataset since the scale differences were negligeable.”
To make it clear: since the database was feed with 1 (presence) and 0 (absence) we didn’t normalize the data. The scale differences between 1 and 0 can be considered as negligeable meaning that the highest number (here, 1) do not overweight the analysis.
Was the dental microwear analysis done on the lingual or labial sides of the paracone and protocone?
L. 177-178: “localized on the lingual sides of the protocone and metaconule of the M2.”
We precise now that the analysis was conducted on the lingual parts of the paracone and the metaconule of the M2.
