Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorDavid LentinkUniversity of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
- Senior EditorGeorge PerryPennsylvania State University, University Park, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
This paper reports fossil soft-tissue structures (tail vanes) of pterosaurs, and attempts to relate this to flight performance and other proposed functions for the tail
Strengths:
The paper presents new evidence for soft-tissue strengthening of vanes using exciting new methods.
Weaknesses:
There seems to be no discussion of bias in the sample selection method - even a simple consideration of whether discarded specimens were likely not to have had the cross-linking lattice, or if it was not visible.
There seems to be no supporting evidence or theory to show how the lattice could have functioned, other than a narrative description. Moreover, there is no comparison to extant organisms where a comparison of function might be drawn.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors have set out to investigate and explain how early members of the Pterosauria were able to maintain stiffness in the vane of their tails. This stiffness, it is said, was crucial for flight in early members of this clade. Through the use Laser-Stimulated Fluorescence imaging, the authors have revealed that certain pterosaurs had a sophisticated dynamic tensioning system that has previously been unappreciated.
Strengths:
The choice of method of investigation for the key question is sound enough, and the execution of the same is excellent. Overall the paper is well written and well presented, and provides a very succinct, accessible and clear conclusion.
Weaknesses:
None