The Problematic Genus Liodesmus Wagner and a New Genus of Caturoidea (Halecomorphi, Neopterygii) from the Upper Jurassic Solnhofen-Archipelagoâ€
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA very good manuscript, relevant for all those working on fossil fishes (Neopterygii), especially Caturoidea.
There are virtually no substantive comments, as everything that should be there has been included. The only thing I can do is to congratulate you on your interesting findings and museum discoveries.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English is at a decent level, as far as I am able to judge as a non-native speaker
Author Response
Line 21-22: We think this sentence is correct and understandable. Reviewers 1 & 3 had no problems with it either.
Line 24: we deleted the two points as suggested by reviewer 1 & 2
Line 363 & 364: we changed , into . as suggested by reviewer 2
Line 829: Reviewers 1 & 2 have different opinions on the style of the headlines. We follow the opinion of reviewer 1 here and do not italicize the species name in this headings. Ultimately, it is the editor’s decision.
Line 846: we correct “her” in “here” as suggested by reviewer 2
Line 852: The style of the journal is to make these headings italic. Therefore, we do not follow reviewer 2's wishes.
Line 853: We italicize Pholidophorus gracilis and Liodesmus gracilis here as reviewer 1 & 2 suggested.
Line 860: we changed “wo” in “who” as suggested by reviewer 2
Line 868-876: We now don't have this quote in italics, as requested by reviewer 1. The editor must decide whether longer quotations should be written in italics, as is common in some journals.
Line 901: We italicize Caturus brevicostatus here as reviewer 1 & 2 suggested.
Line 943: We deleted the word Liodesmidae in the heading of Fig. 20 and added a new figure here.
Line 947: We italicize Nasrinsotoudehichthys sprattiformis here as reviewer 1 & 2 suggested.
Line 941: Some problem with italicize of headings. It is the editor’s decision.
Line 999: we changed “wo” into “who” as suggested by reviewer 1 & 2
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe content of the paper meet well with the issue of the journal 'diversity'. The confusion with Liodesmus gracilis by Wagner and all subsequent authors who worked on the genus Liodesmus(for example and the rediscovery of the holotype of Pholidophorus gracilis in the collection of the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin (MB.f.15598) mad the re-examination and revision of the genus Liodesmus and all specimens that had previously been included in this genus very necessary. The authors carried out such a huge and very important work. The paper is well arranged with enough, high-qualified photos and drawings.
Please see some comments and minor corrections in the following attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The paper wrote well with English language. However, please check throughout the text for minor mistakes.
Author Response
Line 21-22: We think this sentence is correct and understandable. Reviewers 1 & 3 had no problems with it either.
Line 24: we deleted the two points as suggested by reviewer 1 & 2
Line 363 & 364: we changed , into . as suggested by reviewer 2
Line 829: Reviewers 1 & 2 have different opinions on the style of the headlines. We follow the opinion of reviewer 1 here and do not italicize the species name in this headings. Ultimately, it is the editor’s decision.
Line 846: we correct “her” in “here” as suggested by reviewer 2
Line 852: The style of the journal is to make these headings italic. Therefore, we do not follow reviewer 2's wishes.
Line 853: We italicize Pholidophorus gracilis and Liodesmus gracilis here as reviewer 1 & 2 suggested.
Line 860: we changed “wo” in “who” as suggested by reviewer 2
Line 868-876: We now don't have this quote in italics, as requested by reviewer 1. The editor must decide whether longer quotations should be written in italics, as is common in some journals.
Line 901: We italicize Caturus brevicostatus here as reviewer 1 & 2 suggested.
Line 943: We deleted the word Liodesmidae in the heading of Fig. 20 and added a new figure here.
Line 947: We italicize Nasrinsotoudehichthys sprattiformis here as reviewer 1 & 2 suggested.
Line 941: Some problem with italicize of headings. It is the editor’s decision.
Line 999: we changed “wo” into “who” as suggested by reviewer 1 & 2
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI just wanted to let you know that there are no comments. This paper provides an accurate review of Liodesmus species, a task that has been unresolved for a long time.
Author Response
Line 21-22: We think this sentence is correct and understandable. Reviewers 1 & 3 had no problems with it either.
Line 24: we deleted the two points as suggested by reviewer 1 & 2
Line 363 & 364: we changed , into . as suggested by reviewer 2
Line 829: Reviewers 1 & 2 have different opinions on the style of the headlines. We follow the opinion of reviewer 1 here and do not italicize the species name in this headings. Ultimately, it is the editor’s decision.
Line 846: we correct “her” in “here” as suggested by reviewer 2
Line 852: The style of the journal is to make these headings italic. Therefore, we do not follow reviewer 2's wishes.
Line 853: We italicize Pholidophorus gracilis and Liodesmus gracilis here as reviewer 1 & 2 suggested.
Line 860: we changed “wo” in “who” as suggested by reviewer 2
Line 868-876: We now don't have this quote in italics, as requested by reviewer 1. The editor must decide whether longer quotations should be written in italics, as is common in some journals.
Line 901: We italicize Caturus brevicostatus here as reviewer 1 & 2 suggested.
Line 943: We deleted the word Liodesmidae in the heading of Fig. 20 and added a new figure here.
Line 947: We italicize Nasrinsotoudehichthys sprattiformis here as reviewer 1 & 2 suggested.
Line 941: Some problem with italicize of headings. It is the editor’s decision.
Line 999: we changed “wo” into “who” as suggested by reviewer 1 & 2
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
