Taxa Richness Differences in European Zoos between 1959 and 2016: Establishment Period and the Iron Curtain Matter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 48. Some zoos established greater facilities outside urban areas as 'satellite zoos' beginning from the 1930's (Whipsnade)
L 56. Here a reference is needed as there is no apparent reason behind such difference before WWII (see also below)
L 58-60. Delete as not supported. In Italy the anti-zoo movement was evident in mid 1970's and it grew up mainly in the 80's through the Western block
L 62-62 add reference of at least one of Hediger's book.
L 75. The Eastern Block had a privileged access to unique species to some extra-european countries belonging to the Communist block.
L 116. Delete 'ethical'
L 331. This sentence needs a reference. Even in the Western block the number of zoos grew up only after WWII. In Italy in 1940 there were four zoos only (Rome, Milan, Como, Genoa). The number of zoos in Portugal, Spain and Greece was low too.
L 349. Delete sentence and ref (59). This seems an overrated problem for two reasons 1) taxa were often separated even if at subspecific level and 2) as show for example in Gippoliti (2020 - Everything mammal conservation biologists always wanted to know about taxonomy (but were afraid to ask) - and his table 1), current inflated taxonomies are often very similar to those existing at the beginning of Twenty Century, so this variable seems less clear-cut and relevant that supposed by authors here.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for your valueable notes and great and very inspirative ideas for improvements.
We corrected the manuscript according to your suggestions. More accurately you can see in the atteched document and the improved version of manuscript.
Best regards
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Congratulations for the very interesting and well-designed study. Some corrections/suggestions were made directly in the manuscript pdf.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The text present some errors and parts that coulb be corrected and improved for a better understanding. I suggest a careful review of the highlighted parts.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for your valueable notes and good ideas for improvements.
We corrected the manuscript according to your suggestions. More accuretaly see in the atteched document.
Best regards
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
