Reviewer #5 (Public Review):

After reading the manuscript and the concerns raised by reviewer 2 I see both sides of the argument - the relative location of trigeminal nucleus versus the inferior olive is quite different in elephants (and different from previous studies in elephants), but when there is a large disproportionate magnification of a behaviorally relevant body part at most levels of the nervous system (certainly in the cortex and thalamus), you can get major shifting in location of different structures. In the case of the elephant, it looks like there may be a lot of shifting. Something that is compelling is that the number of modules separated but the myelin bands correspond to the number of trunk folds which is different in the different elephants. This sort of modular division based on body parts is a general principle of mammalian brain organization (demonstrated beautifully for the cuneate and gracile nucleus in primates, VP in most of species, S1 in a variety of mammals such as the star nosed mole and duck-billed platypus). I don't think these relative changes in the brainstem would require major genetic programming - although some surely exists. Rodents and elephants have been independently evolving for over 60 million years so there is a substantial amount of time for changes in each l lineage to occur.

I agree that the authors have identified the trigeminal nucleus correctly, although comparisons with more out groups would be needed to confirm this (although I'm not suggesting that the authors do this). I also think the new figure (which shows previous divisions of the brainstem versus their own) allows the reader to consider these issues for themselves. When reviewing this paper, I actually took the time to go through atlases of other species and even look at some of my own data from highly derived species. Establishing homology across groups based only on relative location is tough especially when there appears to be large shifts in relative location of structures. My thoughts are that the authors did an extraordinary amount of work on obtaining, processing and analyzing this extremely valuable tissue. They document their work with images of the tissue and their arguments for their divisions are solid. I feel that they have earned the right to speculate - with qualifications - which they provide.

This is now out of date (from 2008).