Exceptional Preservation of Fungi as H2-Bearing Fluid Inclusions in an Early Quaternary Paleo-Hydrothermal System at Cape Vani, Milos, Greece
, Curt Broman 4, Anna Neubeck 5, Henrik Drake 6, Ernest Chi Fru 7, Stefan Bengtson 2, Jonathan Naden 8, Kleopatra Detsi 3 and Martin J. Whitehouse 9Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a study with a strong and careful analytical sector. Although I have some doubt about some of the interpretations of the data collected, I am unable to evaluate with the same competence all the analytical procedures conducted here. However, it seems to me that analytical accuracy has fully been applied. Remarkable is the accurate description of the results, very helpful for a critical analysis of the results.
One point, however, that I think can be improved is the explanation of the geological context. For example, I don't understand why to provide a geological map of the Milos Island (Fig. 1), rather useless for explaining this study. Also the generalized geological section of Fig. 2: it is unclear its relationship with the Cape Vani sedimentary basin (or even with Fig. 1). Some detail on the geological aspects of Cape Vani itself would better contextualize also the samplings carried out here. A suggestion could be to insert photos, and related descriptions, of the exact point from which one or more samples have been collected.
Author Response
Author response: We agree and have omit the Geological map of Milos (Fig 1.) We think figure 2 (now figure 1) is crucial to understand the geological context and decide to keep it but have added new text to make the regional geology at Milos clearer and to make the use of (old) figure 2 meaningful. The new text is as follows:
“The Cape Vani sedimentary basin (CVSB), NW Milos, is a sedimentary rift basin, floored by dacitic–andesitic lava domes and overlain by Lower Pleistocene fossiliferous volcaniclastic sandstone/sandy tuff infill [31, 32, 37, 38, 39]. It hosts a fossil analogue of active shallow submarine hydrothermal activity on the Milos coast [40]. The CVSB has been divided in three lithologically variable, fault-bounded volcano-sedimentary sub-basins [39]: (A) Basin 1, host of microfossil-rich Precambrian banded iron formation (BIF)-type deposits (MFIF); (B) Basin 2, host of economic-grade Mn oxide ores; and, (C) Basin 3, host of non-fossiliferous BIF-type deposits (NFIF) (Fig. 1). Most of the CVSB volcaniclastics hosting the Mn-rich deposit, are foreshore to shoreface shallow submarine deposits [37, 38, 41]. The BIF-type deposits are considered Earth's youngest BIF analogues of Quaternary age [39].”
We believe old figure 3, now figure 2, is sufficient to describe (with photos) the sampling sites. We already have many figures and don`t think the manuscript would favour of even more figures. However, we added a new sentence in the “Material and Methods” section to connect the sampling to the vani basin:
“Samples were mostly collected from Basin 2 outcrops inside the abandoned Cape Vani Mn mine where they are either from veins (n = 7) …”
The rest of the sentence refer to photographs in figure 2 with respect to sampling.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I have read with great attention your manuscript entitled “Exceptional Preservation of Fungi as H2-Bearing Fluid Inclusions in an Early Quaternary Paleo-Hydrothermal System at Cape Vani, Milos, Greece” submitted for publication in Minerals.
Except a few comments regarding the Figures and some small corrections in the text (see below), I found your manuscript well-written and very interesting. The discussion is convincing and well-supported by the analyses and the numerous references even if, as a non-biologist, it was difficult for me to evaluate some parts of your manuscript. Thus, if the other reviewers agree, I would recommend this article for publication in Minerals after minor revision.
My main criticism comes from your figures. Please homogenise their style, using similar font size and either capitalised or non-capitalised letters in all of them (a, b, c... or A, B, C…). Most of them are not displayed in the correct place in the manuscript. Finally, they are maybe too numerous and some figures could be merged, for instance Figs. 9, 12 and 13 about Raman spectroscopy. My other specific comments for the Figures are:
In Figure 2, define NFIF, CIF and MFIF.
Figure 4 must be displayed in §3.1.
Figure 5 must be displayed in §3.2.1.
Figure 6 must be displayed in §3.2.2
Figure 7 must be displayed in §3.2.3 and could be merged with Figure 8. If you prefer to keep the two figures separated, Figure 8 must be displayed in §3.2.3.
Figure 9 and its caption are not clear. Where do the Raman spectra have been acquired in (A) and in (B)? It would be more logical to invert C1 and C2 in the graph and to add the Raman spectrum acquired in (A) for comparison, even if it is similar to those acquired in (B).
Figure 10 must be homogenised (size of the graphs, font and colours).
In Figure 11, the graph must be split in two separate graphs.
In Figure 12, the letters in the caption are not consistent with those in the figure. H2 bands are not described in the caption.
Figure 13 is too small.
Figure 14 must be displayed in §3.3.3. Images (e) and (g) are too dark to see something. In the caption, l. 490, write “(a) and (b)” instead of “(a) and (c)”.
Figure 15: The letters in the caption are capitalized but not in the figure. In the caption, add a closing bracket after “[62-65]”. The description of Figure 15a in the caption is difficult to follow, please use different types of arrows in Fig. 15a. Explain the acronym “BSR” in the caption. To which element are the grey and the black spots and curves associated with in (b) and (c)?
Regarding the rest of the manuscript, I only have the following comments:
l.295-297 must be removed. They are sentences from the template file.
l. 397: Write “.” instead of “:” after below.
l. 398: Write “between” instead of “between between”
Table 1 must be displayed in §3.4.1.
l. 480: Write “Table 2” instead of “Table 3”.
l.480-483: To facilitate the reading, use the same order for the description, i.e. start the second sentence by the oxygen rather than by the sulphur.
l.515 and 516: replace the “c” for Circa by “c.” or by “ca.”
l. 560: Write “(Fig 15b-c)” instead of ”(Fig 14b-c)”
l. 579: Write “(Fig 15a)” instead of ”(Fig 14a)”
l. 582: Remove “from” after “result of”
l. 583: Write “d34S-d18O” instead of “d34-d18O”
Best regards.
Author Response
I have read with great attention your manuscript entitled “Exceptional Preservation of Fungi as H2-Bearing Fluid Inclusions in an Early Quaternary Paleo-Hydrothermal System at Cape Vani, Milos, Greece” submitted for publication in Minerals.
Except a few comments regarding the Figures and some small corrections in the text (see below), I found your manuscript well-written and very interesting. The discussion is convincing and well-supported by the analyses and the numerous references even if, as a non-biologist, it was difficult for me to evaluate some parts of your manuscript. Thus, if the other reviewers agree, I would recommend this article for publication in Minerals after minor revision.
My main criticism comes from your figures. Please homogenise their style, using similar font size and either capitalised or non-capitalised letters in all of them (a, b, c... or A, B, C…).
Author response: The letters in the figures have been homogenised and capitalised.
Most of them are not displayed in the correct place in the manuscript.
Author response. Fixed.
Finally, they are maybe too numerous and some figures could be merged, for instance Figs. 9, 12 and 13 about Raman spectroscopy.
Author response: We agree that the figures are numerous and we have followed the advice of reviewer 1 and removed figure 1. We have also made several attempts to reduce the other figures in number or merge them without success. Especially, figure 9, 12, 13 is difficult to merge or reduce since they are the core of the manuscript and contain crucial data for the interpretation of our samples. Merging them would involve making important results harder to apprehend so we respectfully wish to keep these figures as they are.
My other specific comments for the Figures are:
In Figure 2, define NFIF, CIF and MFIF.
Done.
Figure 4 must be displayed in §3.1.
Done.
Figure 5 must be displayed in §3.2.1.
Done.
Figure 6 must be displayed in §3.2.2
Done.
Figure 7 must be displayed in §3.2.3 and could be merged with Figure 8. If you prefer to keep the two figures separated, Figure 8 must be displayed in §3.2.3.
Done. The two figures can not simply be merged so we prefer to keep them separated. Old figure 8 (now 7) is moved to 3.2.3
Figure 9 and its caption are not clear. Where do the Raman spectra have been acquired in (A) and in (B)? It would be more logical to invert C1 and C2 in the graph and to add the Raman spectrum acquired in (A) for comparison, even if it is similar to those acquired in (B).
We rephrased the fugure captions to clarify where the Raman spectra have been obtained:
“Figure 8. Raman spectrum of brownish phases captured in (photo A) a filamentous curvi-linear multiphase, mixed aqueous (LH2O) and hydrocarbon [Lhyc─Vhyc─Shyc±solid(s)] inclusion in quartz. The Raman spectrum is obtained at the tip of the upper arrow. Raman spectrum obtained in (photo B) funnel-like one-phase (L) hydrocarbon-bearing type II inclusions in barite, at the tip of the upper arrow.”
Figure 10 must be homogenised (size of the graphs, font and colours).
Done.
In Figure 11, the graph must be split in two separate graphs.
Done.
In Figure 12, the letters in the caption are not consistent with those in the figure. H2 bands are not described in the caption.
The letters in the caption are now the same as in the figure. H2 bands are described as follows:
“graph (C) of the range 4100-4300 cm-1 (blue square C) showing spectra of the vapour phase with a strongest peak at 4155 cm-1 and with minor peaks at 4125, 4143 and 4160 cm-1 indicative of H2 [60].”
Figure 13 is too small.
It`s actually not small but sit gets small when inserted in the manuscript word format. Don`t know what to do but submit the original file.
Figure 14 must be displayed in §3.3.3. Images (e) and (g) are too dark to see something. In the caption, l. 490, write “(a) and (b)” instead of “(a) and (c)”.
We added insets of (E) and (G) of magnifications to show the fluorescence better.
In the caption “(a) and (b)” is changed to “(A) and (B)”.
Figure 15: The letters in the caption are capitalized but not in the figure. In the caption, add a closing bracket after “[62-65]”. The description of Figure 15a in the caption is difficult to follow, please use different types of arrows in Fig. 15a. Explain the acronym “BSR” in the caption. To which element are the grey and the black spots and curves associated with in (b) and (c)?
The letters are now the same in the figure as in the captions. A closing bracket is added. We have rephrased the captions so it is easier to read and we have changed the colours and appearance of the arrows. It is explained in the captions to what elements grey and black dots are correlated, respectively. BSR is explained in the captions.
Regarding the rest of the manuscript, I only have the following comments:
l.295-297 must be removed. They are sentences from the template file.
Done.
397: Write “.” instead of “:” after below.
We don`t understand that change. The sentence would go: “The data are presented in Fig. 10, and Suppl 1, and described below, instead of:…”. It makes no sense. Please specify the rephrasing in more detail.
398: Write “between” instead of “between between”
Done.
Table 1 must be displayed in §3.4.1.
Done.
480: Write “Table 2” instead of “Table 3”.
Done.
l.480-483: To facilitate the reading, use the same order for the description, i.e. start the second sentence by the oxygen rather than by the sulphur.
Done.
l.515 and 516: replace the “c” for Circa by “c.” or by “ca.”
The small c was a typo and was removed.
560: Write “(Fig 15b-c)” instead of ”(Fig 14b-c)”
Done.
579: Write “(Fig 15a)” instead of ”(Fig 14a)”
Done.
582: Remove “from” after “result of”
Done.
583: Write “d34S-d18O” instead of “d34-d18O”
Done.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
