Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0343500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343500

Geochronological insights of middle miocene primates and vertebrate fauna of Ramnagar (J&K, India): Integrating litho- and magnetostratigraphy

Deepak Choudhary 1,2,*, Christopher C Gilbert 3,4,5,6,#, Christopher J Campisano 7,8,#, Daniel J Peppe 1,#, Mohammad Arif 9, Sarvendra Pratap Singh 9, Kahsay Tesfay 1, Biren A Patel 10,11, Wasim Abass Wazir 2, Rohit Kumar 2, Binita Phartiyal 9, Ningthoujam Premjit Singh 12, Kongrailatpam Milankumar Sharma 13, Rajeev Patnaik 2,#
Editor: Shamim Ahmad14
PMCID: PMC12944786  PMID: 41746961

Abstract

The Middle Miocene site of Ramnagar (Jammu and Kashmir), India is well-known for its fossil primates including Sivapithecus indicus, Kapi ramnagarensis, and Ramadapis sahnii. Although always suggested as similar in age to the Chinji Formation of the Potwar Plateau, Pakistan, no precise geochronological age estimates of Ramnagar have yet been obtained. Furthermore, despite some notable previous efforts, the stratigraphic section in the Ramnagar region has not been satisfactorily documented. Therefore, it has long been unclear exactly how the fossil localities around Ramnagar relate to each other or to other Middle Miocene Siwalik localities stratigraphically or chronologically. Here we present new paleomagnetic and revised stratigraphic data for most of the Ramnagar primate-yielding localities. Additionally, we document a near-complete chronology of all the mammal yielding sites belonging to the main ~440 m thick section of the Lower Siwaliks at Ramnagar. We anchor the paleomagnetic results using existing rodent-based biochronology, and further extrapolate ages using sediment accumulation rates to help constrain possible correlations to the Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale (GPTS). Our preferred interpretation constrains all the primate yielding sites from Ramnagar to between ~13.03 Ma and ~11.59 Ma. Moreover, the first appearance datum (FAD) of the stem hylobatid Kapi ramnagarensis and sivaladapid Ramadapis sahnii can now be placed between 12.88–13.03 Ma (incorporating two possible correlations). Further, the FAD of the great ape Sivapithecus can be pushed back into this same time range as well, thereby extending its known chronological range by up to 200,000 years.

Introduction

The Middle Miocene Lower Siwalik deposits near the town of Ramnagar (Udhampur District, Jammu and Kashmir, India (Fig 1 a and b) are well known for the presence of a diverse mammalian assemblage that includes at least four primate species: Sivapithecus indicus, Kapi ramnagarensis, Ramadapis sahnii, and Sivaladapis palaeindicus. For over a century, the Ramnagar fossils have been biostratigraphically correlated with the Middle Miocene Chinji Formation on the Potwar Plateau of Pakistan [120]. The Chinji Formation type locality of the Potwar Plateau is situated ~370 km west of Ramnagar, and it has been dated to ~14.0–11.5Ma using combination of lithostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, fission track dating, and biochronology [2125]. However, despite more than 100 years of fieldwork in the Ramnagar region, the precise geochronologic ages and stratigraphic positions of the Ramnagar fossil localities are unclear due to the absence of detailed lithostratigraphic and geochronological studies comparable to those on the Potwar Plateau. Given the presence of multiple primate taxa, in particular fossil apes representing likely early relatives of both the Asian great ape (i.e., Sivapithecus) and lesser ape (i.e., Kapi) lineages [17,19], along with the broader mammalian fauna, a more precise understanding of the Ramnagar geochronology is important for documenting the timing of primate and mammalian evolution, including the potential first appearance datums (FADs) of a number of mammalian lineages.

Fig 1. Geological and geographical setting of the study area.

Fig 1

(a) Geographical position of Ramnagar within Jammu & Kashmir, India. (b) Detailed geological map showing major lithological units and fossil-bearing localities of the Ramnagar area. Note: The base map was generated in QGIS software using Precision3D Digital Terrain Model (DTM) high-resolution imagery (Vantor/Maxar Technologies, Copyright 2026). Geological boundaries are redrawn and modified after Basu (2004).

In this study, we combine multiple lines of evidence, including lithostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, and biochronology to provide updated possible correlations to the Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale (GPTS) and to the Chinji Formation on the Potwar Plateau. Our geological fieldwork entailed traversing the entire Lower Siwalik and Middle Siwalik sequence exposed around Ramnagar, and placing key fossil mammal localities within the stratigraphic sequence. We documented the complete ~440 m stratigraphic sequence around Ramnagar and constructed a local magnetic polarity section of 190 m that covers nearly all of the well-known fossil primate and other mammal localities. We then used well-established micromammal biochronology from the Potwar Plateau [23,2628] to correlate our local polarity stratigraphy to the GPTS [29] and to determine the age and estimate sediment accumulation rate of the entire Ramnagar succession, and the key fossil sites within the sequence. Using these age constraints, we then compared the age ranges of Ramnagar primate taxa to those found on the Potwar Plateau to examine regional patterns of the first and last occurrence.

Geology of the area

The Siwalik Group represents fluvial deposition from higher altitudes into the Himalayan foreland basins. With an estimated thickness of more than 5,000 meters, the Siwalik sequence in the Jammu and Kashmir region is divided into four mappable lithostratigraphic units: the Mansar Formation, which consists of the Dodenal Member and the Ramnagar Member (Lower Siwalik,), the Dewal and Mohargarh Formations (Middle Siwalik), and the Uttarbaini Formation (Upper Siwalik) [30,31]. The Mansar Formation lies above the Early Miocene Murree Formation. The type section is exposed in the Mansar area, after which it is named [30]. The reference section of the Mansar Formation is exposed in the Ramnagar area between Ramnagar town and Ramchand Peak (RC Peak) (Fig 1b), RC Peak is situated ~11 km southeast of Ramnagar town. The section is continuous, as it lies along the southern limb of Udhampur syncline and the strata gently dip toward Ramnagar town from RC Peak, with an average dip of 12° northwest and strike direction north-northeast to south-southwest (N42E). The strike length of this section is approximately 12 km, extending from Dehari (West) to Kulwanta Chowk/Junction (East). Due to the orientation of the dip and the pattern of erosion in the area, the oldest sediments are exposed at the highest elevation (Ramchand Peak), with the youngest exposed at the lowest elevation (Ramnagar Khad/River). The sequence then continues across the river, ascending topographically to Dalsar and transitioning into the Middle Siwaliks as defined lithologically by multi-storied sandstone. The Ramnagar member of Mansar formation is composed of alternating beds of arenaceous (sandstones, intraformational sandstones, and conglomerates) and argillaceous (clay and siltstone paleosols) rocks. A previous study [7] documented a series of 10 sandstones in a ~ 350 m sequence, however, fieldwork conducted by our group identified several discrepancies between the published work and outcrop stratigraphy, which this study aims to resolve.

Methodology

Lithostratigraphy

Since 2020, our team has conducted multiple field seasons at Ramnagar, focusing particularly on lithostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, and paleontological collections. We undertook multiple traverses following marker beds from Kulwanta to Ramchand Peak, Ramchand Peak to Rashole, Ramchand Peak to Dheeran, Rashole to Sunetar-1, Sunetar-1 to Bassi, Bassi to Dehari, Bassi to Thaplal, Thaplal to Ramnagar Khad, and Ramnagar Khad to Dalsar to determine the complete lithostratigraphic thickness of the section, to describe the Mansar Formation lithofacies, and to corelate between key fossil sites. During these traverses, we walked out bedding plane contacts and marker beds, which were primarily large sandstone units, between the sections. These efforts resulted in a 440 m stratigraphic sequence from Ramchand Peak to Dalsar. The geological section was measured using a combination of a Jacob’s staff with an Abney hand-level on traversable sections and a TruPulse L2 laser rangefinder and a 10-m measuring tape at road cuts and outcrop exposures that were too steep to climb. The dip and strike of each sandstone were determined using a Brunton Pocket Transit Compass. A Garmin handheld GPS unit was used to record the latitude, longitude, and elevation of each locality and sandstone.

Twenty-two large intraformational sandstones were identified and numbered in stratigraphic order from lowest to highest across the section (S1-S22) (see Figs 1.b). Where possible, we tried to synonymize the sandstones recognized here with those previously identified and published [7] (Table 1). From the complete 440 m stratigraphic column, we sampled a 190 m thick section exposed along the Songar River and Ramnagar River for magnetostratigraphy that spans many recently described fossil localities, and also sampled section at three primate-bearing localities: Sunetar 2, Rashole, and Thaplal [7,8,10,13,1620].

Table 1. Association of numbered sandstones from this study (S1 = oldest) with fossil localities, paleosol horizon and primate taxa. Where possible, correlations between sandstones of Basu [7] are noted. Note that if Dalsar represents the Middle Siwaliks, the Sivapithecus specimens recovered could represent S. sivalensis.

New Section (This Study) Basu Section Localities Above these sandstones Fossiliferous Paleosol Horizon Primate Taxa
S22 Dalsar Sivapithecus sp.
S17 A
S16 B
S15 E & I Thaplal & Dehari P18 Sivapithecus indicus, Sivaladapis palaeindicus
S14 Bassi P17
S12 G Tarmin Peak P15
S9 Sunetar, Rashole, Marta P9 Sivapithecus indicus, Kapi ramnagarensis, Ramadapis sahnii
S6 Kathela 2 P6
S5 Kathela 1 P5
S4 Ritti Mitti 2 P4
S2 Ritti Mitti 1 P2
S1 Kulwanta P1

Magnetostratigraphy and magnetic mineralogy

Paleomagnetic sampling was conducted through a composite 190-m thick section encompassing all known primate and major fossil localities in the Middle Miocene Ramnagar Member. This includes the Main Section (MS), which extends from S9 to S15, and the Dehari Section (DH), which extends from S15 to S16 (Fig 1.b). As the ~ 35 m paleosol sequence between S15 and S16 is more continuous and better exposed at the Dehari section than MS, it was preferred for paleomagnetic sampling. Samples were also collected from Thaplal (TH), Sunetar-2 (ST), Rashole (RS), and Bassi (BS) for comparative analysis and to assess lithostratigraphic correlation between fossil localities. Paleomagnetic samples were collected from fine-grained mudstone (paleosols/mudstones) and sandstones at intervals ranging from 0.25 to 8 m, with an average interval of 1–2 m. In total, 241 block samples were collected from 84 sites: 172 samples from the Main Section (55 sites), 37 from Dehari (16 sites), 11 from Sunetar-2 (6 sites), 12 from Thaplal (4 sites), 5 from Rashole (2 sites), and 4 from a single site at Bassi (details in S1 Table). Multiple bedding orientations (strike and dip) were recorded for tilt corrections from each sampled stratigraphic section. The strata gently dip northwest at an average of 12° from Ramchand Peak toward Ramnagar town, with a strike of N42°E.

Samples were collected from both fine-grained sediments (clays, siltstones and paleosols) and sandstones in the section. Well-indurated sandstone samples were collected by measuring the strike and dip of the bedding surface with a Bruton Pocket Transit Compass and then removing a large block. At these sample sites, one large block sample (up to ~0.5 m in diameter) was collected. Clays, siltstones, paleosols, and fine-grained sandstones were also sampled at higher resolution between block sampled sandstone units. Prior to sampling, the finer grained material, sampling sites were trenched to remove surface weathering so that unweathered material could be sampled. For the fine-grained units, when sampling an in situ flat surface was prepared using a hand rasp. The strike and dip of the prepared face was measured with a Brunton Pocket Transit. At each sampling horizon (“site”), typically four block samples (“specimens”) were collected.

Samples were prepared in two ways. The sandstone block samples were subsampled by core drilling and sectioning into standard cylindrical specimens (2.54 cm diameter, 2.2 cm height). Up to six cores per sample were sub-sampled from the sandstone block samples (21.5% of samples with prefix D21 see S2 Table). For the finer grained samples and resampled sandstone (79.5% of samples with prefix D23 and D25), at least three of the four collected sample specimens were cut into 2–4 cm³ cubes using a lapidary saw, and each sample produced a single specimen for analysis.

Paleomagnetic measurements and natural remanent magnetization (NRM) of the finer grained samples were conducted using a 2G Enterprises cryogenic DC-SQUID magnetometer inside a two-layered magnetostatic shielded room with a background field typically less than 300 nT at Baylor University, Texas, USA (BU). For the sandstone block samples, measurements were performed using a JR6 spinner magnetometer at the Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences, Lucknow, India (BSIP). Samples were demagnetized following a similar protocol at BU and BSIP. The NRM of each sample was measured before step-wise thermal demagnetization. All specimens were stepwise demagnetized using an ASC Scientific TD-48 thermal (Th) demagnetizer with increment intervals of 25–50°C up to a maximum unblocking temperature, or until magnetization became erratic and unstable, which was typically between 650 and 680°C. Progressive demagnetization continued until the magnetic intensity dropped below the noise level or the directions became unstable. To minimize oxidation reactions in the fine-grained samples, thermal demagnetization was conducted in a controlled nitrogen atmosphere.

The demagnetization data from BU were analyzed using the PMGSC software [3234] and the data from BSIP were analyzed using an AGICO Remasoft 3.0 software [35]. The characteristic remanence (ChRM) of each specimen was calculated using the orthogonal endpoint Zijderveld diagrams technique [36] and the least-squares best fitting line following the principal component analysis (PCA) approach [37] or remagnetization of great circles analysis [38,39]. The ChRM was extracted from at least four remanent vector endpoints aligned linearly toward the origin and had a maximum angle of deviation (MAD) < 20°. Demagnetization data were typically anchored to the origin because most specimens exhibited a well-defined stable endpoint demagnetization behavior that showed a trend directed to the origin. Specimens with ChRM directions with MAD > 20° and specimens with erratic demagnetization behavior were excluded from the further analysis and not used in our polarity determinations. Samples with erratic or poorly defined directions accounted for less than 6% of analyzed samples. The site mean direction for sample horizons with three or more significant ChRM directions was calculated using Fisher statistics [40] and the site mean ChRM directions were converted to virtual geomagnetic pole (VGP) latitudes. Site mean direction with an α95 > 35° did not pass the Watson test [41] for randomness and were excluded from further interpretation. Reversal boundaries were placed at the stratigraphic midpoint of samples of opposing polarity. The resulting local magnetic polarity stratigraphy (LMPS) was then correlated to the geomagnetic polarity timescale (GPTS) [29].

A triaxial isothermal remanent magnetization (IRM) Lowrie test [42] was conducted on 11 samples collected from different lithologies to identify the mineralogy of the primary magnetic carriers. A 1 T, 300 mT, and 100 mT field was imparted along the X, Y, and Z axes using an ASC Scientific impulse magnetizer. Samples were then thermally demagnetized in 20–100°C incremental heating steps up to 700°C at BU using an ASC Scientific controlled atmosphere thermal demagnetizer in an N2 atmosphere. The magnetization of the X, Y, and Z axes was then measured using a 2G Cryogenics DC-SQUID magnetometer at each demagnetization step.

The individual(s) pictured in the Supporting Information figures have provided written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish their images alongside the manuscript.

Results

Lithostratigraphy

The complete lithostratigraphic column of the Ramnagar sequence from Kulwanta [10,15,18] to Dalsar localities [9] consists of 22 reference sandstones (numbered S1 to S22 from the bottom to top), 26 reference paleosol/mudstones (P1 to P26), as well as multiple silty mudstones, intraformational sandstones, and muddy mottled sandstones (Fig 2, S1-S9 Fig). This is in contrast to the 10 sandstones (identified as A-J) documented by Basu [7]. In some cases, sandstones recognized as distinct by Basu [7] were demonstrated to be the same sandstone based on physical tracing of the units, while other recognized here were undocumented by Basu [7] (see Table 1), particularly at higher elevations (e.g., above Tarmin Peak). Additionally, some units recognized by Basu [7] either were not in our stratigraphic succession or were unable to be located using published maps (e.g., Sandstones C and J in Fig 2, [7]).

Fig 2. Complete lithostratigraphic column of the Ramnagar section, illustrating major fossil-bearing localities.

Fig 2

Paleomagnetic sampling was conducted across a 190 m interval of the sequence, spanning units S9 to S16. Sandstone unit S1 represents the oldest horizon in the section, while S22 is the youngest. S22, located below Dalsar locality, belongs to the Middle Siwalik formation (see Fig 1c for reference).

The 22 reference sandstones in our study range from 1.5 to 13 m thick and are greyish and dark brown to yellowish in color with a medium to fine grain size (S1 Fig). The brownish sandstones are typically coarser grained than the greyish sandstones. The other sandstone beds, which we refer to as intraformational sandstone units are thinner (typically <2 m thick) fine to very fine-grained sandstones that are grey to greyish pink in color. These intraformational sandstones cannot be traced laterally over long distances. The sandstone bodies within our section can be categorized into three distinct types based on their thickness and lateral continuity, reflecting diverse fluvial depositional environments. Type 1 sandstones are thick (5–6 m or more), laterally extensive sandstone units traceable over kilometers, interpreted as major channel-belt deposits of a meandering or low sinuosity river system. Type 2 sandstones include moderately thick sandstones (2–6 m) with limited lateral extent (hundreds of meters), representing crevasse splays or minor distributary channels formed during episodic flood events. Type 3 sandstones consist of thin (<2 m), laterally restricted sandstone lenses, likely deposited as distal splays, sheetfloods, or abandoned channel fills in low-energy floodplain settings. Sandstone types 1 and 2 comprise our 22 reference sandstones, while type 3 sandstones are the intraformational sandstones. In particular, three sandstone units (S1, S9, S15) serve as key stratigraphic markers due to their erosion-resistant nature, thickness and lateral continuity (traceable over kilometers). These units act as basement of prominent cuesta-type landforms, with the S1–S9 sandstone sequence creating escarpments along the Dheeran River, the S9–S15 sequence exposed along the Songar River, and the S15–S22 sequence traceable at Ramnagar Khad/River.

The majority of the fine-grained deposits are pedogenically modified and the lithology was claystone and siltstone, and occasionally sandy siltstone or very fine silty sandstone. These fine-grained units, which we colloquially refer to as paleosols because the majority have at least some degree of pedogenic modification, occur between the sandstone units and range from 5 to 30 m in thickness.

Overall, the Ramnagar sequence is dominated by fine overbank deposits that are variably pedogenically modified and interbedded with interval of thick, laterally continuous sandstones that likely represent major fluvial channel or sheet flood deposits that covered the landscape (Fig 2, S5 Fig). At the base of the lithostratigraphic column lies Sandstone 1 (S1), which appears to conformably overlie the Murree Formation. Above this sandstone lies the Kulwanta fossil locality, which is situated on the northwest side of the road from Kulwanta Chowk to Ramchand Peak (RC peak Fig 1). The youngest sandstone, S22, lies on top of cuesta-type topography along the western side of the Ramnagar Khad, with the Dalsar village lying atop this sandstone. This uppermost pebbly sandstone (S22) displays characteristics that distinguish it from other sandstones in the section (S2-S3 Figs). S22 consists of massive, multistoried blue-grey sand with reduced red silt content and a high concentration of quartz pebbles. Lithologically, it aligns more closely with the sandstones found in the Middle Siwaliks rather than with those of the Lower Siwaliks, which are generally thinner, devoid of quartz pebbles, and lack evidence of multistoried channel structures (e.g., [23,43]).

Magnetic mineralogy

Multiple-component IRM-Th demagnetization experiments [42] (Fig 3a and 3b) for all analyzed samples indicate that samples were dominated by a similar mineralogy through the Ramnagar section. The vast majority of IRM was held by grains with a coercivity of 1T (Fig 3). In all analyzed samples, the remanent magnetization of the hard coercivity component (1 T) decreased sharply between 650°C and 700°C indicating the presence of hematite (Fig 3). Whereas the soft (0.1 T) and intermediate coercivity components (0.3 T) show a more gradual decline, with unblocking temperatures between 200°C–350°C and remanence occasionally persisting above 400°C, and complete demagnetization between ~650–680°C suggesting potential contributions from greigite and magnetite (Fig 3). In addition to the IRM-Th demagnetization behavior, most demagnetization temperatures align with Curie values ≥ 675°C, also indicating that hematite is the primary magnetic carrier in the sediments (Fig 4).

Fig 3. Rock magnetic properties of selected specimens (a) and (b) are the progressive thermal demagnetizations of a composite isothermal remanent magnetization (IRM) [42] that were produced by magnetizing the specimens in a magnetic field Mx, My, and Mz of 1T (high coercivity or hard component), 0.3T (medium coercivity component), and 0.1T (low coercivity or soft component), along three mutually orthogonal axes, respectively.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Representative Zijderveld diagrams, NRM intensity decay, and equal-area plots showing thermal demagnetization after bedding tilt correction.

Fig 4

(a, b) Reversed and normal polarity trajectories for sandstones. (c, d) Reversed and normal polarity trajectories for paleosols. Solid symbols: downward inclinations; open symbols: upward inclinations. Magnetization intensity scales: × 10 ⁻ ² A/m.

Magnetostratigraphy

Two hundred and fourty One block samples were collected from eighty-four84sites and analyzed during this study (S1 Table). The typical demagnetization results obtained are shown in Fig 4, indicating that the characteristics of high-blocking temperature magnetization directions are adequately defined during thermal demagnetization, yielding populations of normal and reversed magnetization components before and after bedding tilt correction (Figs 4 and 5). The Th demagnetization curves of most specimens typically exhibit two-component behavior: a low-temperature remanent component (LTC) in almost all the samples that was removed by approximately 350°C, and a high-temperature component (HTC) that was isolated between 350 and 675°C. Although the majority of samples had a single directional component that lacked a clear separation between the LTC an HTC (Fig 4 b and 4c)

Fig 5. The Ramnagar section’s characteristic remanence (ChRM) directions.

Fig 5

(a) Bedding-tilt corrected ChRMs of the specimens that roughly converged into two antipodal clusters. (b) Site mean direction for normal and reverse polarity. (c) Normal and reversed site mean directions from Main Section, Dehari Section, Thaplal Locality. (d) Overall mean direction for both reversed and normal polarity. All Solid symbols indicate downward (positive) inclinations, while open symbols denote upward (negative) inclinations.

The stepwise Th demagnetization enabled isolation of the ChRM component for the majority of samples analyzed (98.3%), which allowed construction of a magnetic polarity stratigraphy (Fig 5). A small number of samples (4%) exhibited erratic demagnetization behavior above 500°C, preventing the isolation of reliable ChRM directions. The HTC direction, including antipodal normal and reversed polarities, shows a well-defined stable linear segment that is directed toward the origin and is interpreted as characteristic remanence direction (ChRM) (Figs 4 and 5). A total of 98.3% (241 samples) of reliable ChRM directions were determined as PCA-derived linear directions (Fig 5a, S2 Table). In some cases (1.7%), due to the overlapping LTC and HTC, a Great Circle (GC) fit was used to determine a ChRM vector (S2 Table). Site mean directions generally showed good within-site consistency (Fig 5b, S3 Table). Despite some scattered sites, we calculated the site mean for fourty-seven sampling horizons (57.3% of sampled horizons) that passed Watson’s (1956) randomness test and these sites mean directions were used for our polarity interpretations (S3 Table). The sites mean and specimen directions establish a local polarity stratigraphy for the Ramnagar sequence (Fig 6). The average specimen and site mean direction distributions are clustered into two opposite polarity magnetization directions for each magnetic polarity chron from Main Section, Dehari and Thaplal l (Fig 5c) (Table 2). A reversal test [39] indicates that the site-mean directions do not pass at the 95% confidence level. The deviation from a perfect dipole in the site-mean directions is attributed to the structural tilt of the southern limb of the Udhampur Syncline, where bedding dips 12–15° and the apparent dip ranges between 3–5°. Such local deformation alters the orientation of the tilt corrected magnetization directions, likely causing the observed directions to diverge from those expected for an ideal geocentric axial dipole.

Fig 6. Virtual Geomagnetic Pole (VGP) Latitude of S9–S16 Sandstones of Main Section and Individual Sites with Correlation to Local Polarity Stratigraphy.

Fig 6

Table 2. Mean Paleomagnetic Direction Data.

Subset n D (°) I (°) K (°) a95 (°) Pole (N°) Pole (E°)
Sample location stratigraphy
 Main section – Reversed 22 198 −33.8 20.9 6.9 −68.4 022.4
 Main Section – Normal 13 350 42.7 18.3 11 78.1 305.4
 Dehari Section – Reversed 6 201 −53.7 27 13.1 −72.5 334.8
 Thaplal Locality – Reversed 4 195 −41.1 163 7.2 −73.9 016.4
 Bassi Locality – Normal 1 14.5 51.8 77.8 163
 Rashole Locality – Reversed 1 206.8 −53.8 −67.7 333.9
 Sunter-2 – Reversed 2 210 −39.7 −61.6 358.8
Local polarity stratigraphy
 Normal 1 (N1) 1 341.2 53 74.3 353.3
 Reversal 1 (R1) 15 195.1 −34.4 18 9.6 −70.6 027.4
 Normal 2 (N2) 2 343.6 42.2 73.4 319.2
 Reversal 2 (R2) 8 202.8 −32.5 28 10.7 −64.5 016.2
 Normal 1 (N3) 1 342.5 43.5 73 324
 Reversal (R3) 2 188.6 −34.9 74.4 043.6
 Normal 4 (N4) 8 353.1 39.5 16.33 14.1 78 287.5
 Reversal 4 (R4) 10 198.2 −48.6 33.7 8.4 −74.1 352.2
 Normal 5 (N5) 2 331.4 47.8 65 343.9
 All data
 All normal sites 14 351.8 43.7 18.5 10.4
 All reversed sites 35 197.6 −38.7 21.4 5.4

(Note: n—number of site means; D—declination; I—inclination; k—Fisher’s (1953) precision parameter; a95—radius of 95% confidence cone around mean [40]; pole °N and °E—mean virtual geomagnetic pole latitude and longitude calculated from each subset).

The 190 m main section includes five normal polarity events separated by four reversals, with lithostratigraphy, local polarity stratigraphy, specimen/site-mean polarity, and VGP latitudes summarized in Fig 6. All samples from Dehari, Thaplal, Rashole, and Sunetar are reversed. These sections were correlated to the main Ramnagar section based on lithostratigraphic correlation to develop a composite magnetostratigraphic section for the complete Ramnagar section (Fig 6).

Discussion

Relationship of polarity stratigraphy to GPTS

The local polarity stratigraphy demonstrates nine polarity intervals through the Ramnagar section (Fig 6). Most of the reversals have multiple site mean directions (R1, N2, R2, R3, N4, R4, N5; Fig 6). However, two intervals are defined by a single site mean (N1, N3) and both of these normal intervals correspond to major sandstone units (Table 2) (Fig 6). It is possible that these two normal intervals (N1 and N3) could sample overprint directions; however, we deem this highly unlikely for four reasons. First, we only sampled fine grained sandstone beds and there are multiple sandstone units within the stratigraphy that have the same polarity as the surrounding samples from fine-grained paleosol units, including both normal (S15, S16) and reversed direction (S10, S11, S13) (Fig 6). Second, the magnetic mineralogy of the sandstone and fine-grained paleosol units are identical (Figs 3 and 4), demonstrating that they have the same magnetic carrier making it unlikely that the sandstones were overprinted while the fine-grained paleosols were not. Third, samples from different horizons within the sandstone units without site mean directions show a direction that is consistent with the site mean. Fourth, the direction data is very robust as the site mean directions are defined using ≥5 specimen directions, and the site mean direction overlaps with the expected Miocene pole direction [44]. Thus, we interpret the reversal sequence, including the two normal intervals with a single site mean direction, to be robust and to reflect Miocene polarity.

While there are no radiometric dates from the section, the local magnetic polarity stratigraphy can be correlated with the GPTS [29] using rodent and macromammal biochronology to constrain the depositional age of the sequence (Fig 7 and 8).

Fig 7. a) Magnetic polarity stratigraphy of sandstone units S9 to S16, showing the preferred correlation (2nd) with the Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale (GPTS) [29].

Fig 7

(b) Three alternative GPTS interpretations proposed and assessed using biostratigraphic constraints from the Ramnagar section.

Fig 8. Biostratigraphy chart of Ramnagar fauna.

Fig 8

DL- Dalsar, TH- Thaplal, DH- Dheari, BS- Bassi, TP- Tarmin Peak, S1- Sunetar 1, S2- Sunetar 2, MR- Marta, RS- Rashole, KT1 – Kathela 1, KT2- Kathela 2, RM- Ritti-Mitti, KW- Kulwanta. Confirmed faunal occurrences in the stratigraphic context based on [820,45].

From the bottom of the magnetostratigraphic section, Rashole records the thryonomyid Paraulacodus indicus from above S9 [45] (S10 Fig), which has a restricted range on the Potwar Plateau between ~13.1–12.7 Ma [27]. At Tarmin Peak, which is stratigraphically above S12 (or Sandstone G of Basu 2004), reports of Antemus chinjiensis (~13.8–12.7) and Megacricetodon cf. sivalensis (~16.8–12.7) by Sehgal and Patnaik [9] provide an estimated age between ~13.8–12.7 Ma [27,46]. However, additional specimens, particularly more diagnostic first molars, are needed to confirm the presence of Antemus at Tarmin Peak relative to the younger and more variable sample of post-Antemus beginning ~12.4 Ma [28] (J. Flynn, personal communication). Furthermore, there is a gap in fossil rodent localities between ~12.7–12.4 Ma on the Potwar Plateau [28], making it possible that the true LAD of Antemus lies somewhere in this interval, postdating the 12.7 Ma last occurrence at Potwar. Post-Antemus samples are first documented at Potwar sites ~12.4 Ma. Nevertheless, given an established age range of ~17.9–12.7 Ma for the genus Megacricetodon on the Potwar Plateau, the presence of Megacricetodon at Tarmin Peak is suggestive that the site is indeed ~12.7 Ma or greater, or at least greater than ~12.4 Ma when post-Antemus occurs and Megacricetodon is definitively no longer sampled.

At the site of Bassi, located within the thick paleosol P17 overlying S14, specimens of Antemus chinjiensis have recently been described from the lower level [14], suggesting a biochronological age ~ 13.8–12.7 Ma [27]. However, the presence of A. chinjiensis at Bassi is again based on a small sample size of specimens: a partial lower right M2 reported by Gilbert et al. [18], and a left upper first molar, a right lower first molar, a right lower second molar, and a left lower third molar reported by Parmar et al. [14]. Given the variability of post-Antemus samples (i.e., some specimens look just like Antemus while others are more derived), it is prudent to be cautious about identifying A. chinjiensis vs. post-Antemus in the absence of larger samples, particularly of first molars. Similar to the situation at Tarmin Peak, a larger sample size is necessary to confidently differentiate Antemus from post-Antemus (L. Flynn, personal communication), and thus the current sample from Bassi is biochronologically consistent with an age range spanning both Antemus and post-Antemu (~13.8–11.6 Ma) taxa until the appearance of definitive pre-Progonomys samples at site from at sites from ~11.6–11.4 Ma [27,46].

At Dehari (above S15), specimens attributed to the “post-Antemus/pre-Progonomys” (12.4–11.6 Ma) interval have been reported alongside Megacricetodon daamsi (15.2–12.8 Ma), Galerix sp. (~14.3–11.6 Ma) and Kanisamys indicus (16.8–11.4 Ma) [13,16,47]. However, the upper M1 of the specimen referred to M. daamsi displays notable morphological and metric deviations from other Megacricetodon samples. The tooth is disproportionately large for Megacricetodon and instead falls within the metric range typical of Democricetodon (see S4 Table). Additionally, the anterocone on the upper first molar (M1) is not divided into two parts, suggesting it is single-lobed rather than bilobed (L. Flynn, personal communication). Thus, it seems more likely that this specimen represents a species within the genus Democricetodon, which ranges between ~21–8.7 Ma [27,46], thereby removing any biochronological constraints imposed by M. daamsi at Dehari. Based on the presence of post-Antemus/pre-Progonomys murines, Galerix sp., and Kanisamys indicus, the age range of the Dehari locality is estimated to be between ~12.4 to 11.6 Ma.

Given these biostratigraphic constraints between 13.1 and 11.6 Ma for the Rashole, Tarmin Peak, Bassi and Dehari sites from oldest to youngest, and because of the numerous paleomagnetic transitions within the Middle Miocene, there are three potential correlations to the GPTS for the Ramnagar section (Fig 7). We describe each scenario from older to younger in detail below, highlighting major reversals and their association with faunal age ranges.

Option 1.

In this scenario, R1 is correlated with C5AAr (13.18 to 13.36 Ma), R2 with C5Ar.3r (12.887 to 13.032 Ma), N4 with C5Ar.1n (12.735 to 12.770 Ma), and R4 with C5Ar.1r (12.474 to 12.735 Ma). The Rashole locality, situated above S9, is constrained by a biostratigraphic age estimate of approximately 13.1 to 12.7 Ma based on the Paraulacodus indicus age range. Thus, Rashole’s position near the lower end of R1 implies a first appearance datum (FAD) nearly 200−250 kyr earlier than previously recognized. While not impossible, this GPTS correlation is less consistent with the biostratigraphy at Rashole compared to Options 2 and 3 (see below). More critically, it would necessitate extending the FAD of Sivapithecus (reported from Rashole, see [20] by approximately 400−600 kyr, given the recorded FAD for Sivapithecus specimens on the Potwar Plateau is found in C5Ar.1n ~ 12.73–12.77 Ma [22,23,4850]. This correlation also places Rashole and Sunetar 2 within C5Ar.3r, making specimens of the primates Sivapithecus, Kapi, and Ramadapis from these sites between 13.18–13.36 Ma.

In Option 1, both Tarmin Peak (above S12) and the Bassi locality (above S14) are correlated with R2 and N4, which align well with biostratigraphic age estimates if Antemus chinjiensis and Megacricetodon are indeed present at Tarmin Peak (Chron C5Ar.3r, ~ 12.88–13.03 Ma) and the murine sample at Bassi represents A. chinjiensis as well (Chron C5Ar.1n, ~ 12.73–12.77 Ma). The Dehari locality, situated above S15, lies within the stratigraphic interval encompassing reversal R4, Chron C5Ar.1r, ~ 12.47–12.73 Ma. The biochronological age of Dehari is estimated between 12.4 and 11.6 Ma, which is slightly younger than Chron C5Ar.1r, particularly given Dehari’s stratigraphic placement near the middle of the reversal.

Option 2.

Within this framework, R1 is correlated with C5Ar.3r (12.887 to 13.032 Ma), R2 with C5Ar.2r (12.770 to 12.829 Ma), N4 with C5An.2n (12.272 to 12.474 Ma), and R4 with C5An.1r (12.174 to 12.272 Ma). This correlation places Rashole within polarity zone R1 (C5Ar.3r, ~ 12.887 to 13.032 Ma), which aligns well with its biostratigraphic age estimate of 13.1 to 12.7 Ma based on P. indicus. This correlation also places Sunetar 2 within C5Ar.3r, indicating that the primate specimens Sivapithecus, Kapi, and Ramadapis from Rashole and Sunetar 2 date to an age between 12.887 and 13.032 Ma. This age estimate is slightly older than the currently accepted age for the earliest Sivapithecus specimens from the Potwar Plateau, which fall within C5Ar.1n (~12.73 to 12.77 Ma) [22,24,4850], potentially extending the FAD of Sivapithecus by ~100–200 kyr.

Both Tarmin Peak (above S12) and Bassi (above S14) again correlate with chrons R2 and N4, respectively, consistent with biochronological estimates if both Antemus chinjiensis and Megacricetodon are present at Tarmin Peak (Chron C5Ar.2r, ~ 12.77–12.82 Ma) and the murine sample at Bassi (Chron C5An.2n, ~ 12.27–12.47 Ma) represents either late occurring Antemus chinjiensis (filling in the previously noted gap between ~12.4–12.7 Ma) or post-Antemus. In this correlation, the Dehari locality, situated above S15 and exhibiting a biostratigraphic age of 12.4 to 11.6 Ma, fits well within the age range of chron R4 (12.174 to 12.272 Ma).

Option 3.

This correlation aligns R1 with chron C5Ar.2r (12.770–12.829 Ma), R2 with C5Ar.1r (12.474–12.735 Ma), N4 with C5An.1n (12.049–12.174 Ma), and R4 with C5r.3r (11.657–12.049 Ma). In this framework, the Rashole biochronological age estimate (12.7–13.1) corresponds well with the age of R1 (~12.770–12.829 Ma), and the first appearance datum (FAD) of primates from Rashole (Sivapithecus) and Sunetar 2 (Ramadapis, Kapi) would fall within this chron, up to 100 kya older than the recorded FAD for Sivapithecus on the Potwar Plateau (12.73–12.77 Ma) [22,23,4850].

In this option, the Tarmin Peak biochronological age estimate (12.7–13.8Ma) based on A. chinjiensis and Megacricetodon aligns with R2, as the locality lies in the lower part of R2 (~12.7 Ma in this correlation). This scenario places Bassi within chron N4 (12.049–12.174 Ma), which is consistent if the identified A. chinjiensis specimens at Bassi instead represent post-Antemus. The Dehari locality, with a biochronological age estimate of 11.6–12.4, aligns well with chron R4 (11.657–12.049 Ma).

Within the local magnetic polarity stratigraphy, a reversed-to-normal transition is recorded at the top levels of P18 (321 m) and a normal-to-reversed transition is recorded at the top levels of S9 (156 m). Using each possible correlation option to the GPTS, we determined the sediment accumulation rates for the Ramnagar local magnetic polarity stratigraphy and then extrapolated the sediment accumulation rates (SAR) through the entire section (Fig 9, S5 Table, see S11 Fig. for SAR of option 1and 3). In the three possible scenarios listed above, this 165 m thick sequence would be deposited between 12.474–13.636 (18.55 cm/kyr, Option 1), 12.174–13.032 Ma (19.23 cm/kyr; Option 2), 11.657–12.829 Ma (14.07 cm/kyr; Option 3). The Chinji lithofacies in the Khaur and Tatrot-Andar sections on the Potwar plateau exhibit mean sediment accumulation rates (SAR) of approximately 23 cm/kyr and 13 cm/kyr, respectively [21]. All three of our estimated SAR values for Ramnagar fall within this range, supporting the consistency of sedimentation rates across comparable lithostratigraphic units at Ramnagar and Potwar. Using theSAR rates, we extrapolated the age of the top and bottom of the section compared it to two additional chronologically constrained localities. The lithology at Dalsar (above S22, ~ 440 m level) was assigned to the Middle Siwaliks sequence by Basu (7] and confirmed in this study as lithologicaly most consistent with the Middle Siwaliks (S2-S3 Fig.). The S22 sandstone (immediately below Dalsar) is the only pebbly sandstone in the Ramnagar sequence described here and it fits best with the lithological description of the Late Miocene Middle Siwalik sequence. Barring any unrecognized disconformity, the lithology below S19 is most similar to the Middle Miocene Lower Siwalik sequence, which would place S19-22 at/near the base of the Middle Siwalik sequence. The base of the Middle Siwaliks sequence coincides with the start of the Late Miocene at ~11.5 Ma on the Potwar Plateau [24]. Thus, the site of Dalsar is estimated to be close to this age as well.

Fig 9. Observed magnetic polarity stratigraphy (MPTS) is plotted against the standard geomagnetic polarity timescale (GPTS; Ogg, 2020) to assess sediment accumulation rates (SAR) for preferred Option 2.

Fig 9

(For option 1 & 3, see S2 Fig).

The biostratigraphy of rodents and the macrofauna from the base of the Ramnagar Lower Siwaliks sequence at Kulwanta (above S1, ~ 5 m level) have been used to estimate the site to be ~ 13.8–13.5 Ma [10,11,18] i.e., equivalent to the base of the Chinji Fm. on the Potwar Plateau, ~ 14 Ma. Extrapolations of SAR using Option 2 (base of paleomagnetic sequence is C5Ar.3r) provide an age estimate of ~11.55 Ma for Dalsar (it can vary as lithology changes above S19) and ~13.81 Ma for Kulwanta (S5 Table), which is consistent with existing age estimates for these sites. Extrapolations based on the two other scenarios (Option 1 and Option 3) generate estimates for Dalsar of ~11.83 Ma or ~10.82 Ma, and for Kulwanta of ~14.17 Ma or ~14 Ma, respectively. While both estimates for Kulwanta are reasonably close to the known age of the base of the Chinji Fm., the estimates for Dalsar, which appears to lie at the base of the Middle Siwaliks (~11.5 Ma) on lithological evidence, are either too old (Option 1) or too young (Option 3). Thus, based on the entirety of lithological and biochronological data available, we propose that the most likely paleomagnetic correlation at this time is Option 2. Option 2 is also considered most likely correlation because, as discussed above, it does not require any major changes in the FAD or LAD of established biostratigraphically informative taxa, but rather a slight extension of the rare fossil ape Sivapithecus indicus. We consider Option 1, which would be the oldest correlation, to be the most unlikely because it is least consistent with the biostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic data at present. Although, we consider Options 1 and 3 less likely that option 2, we present them as possible alternative age models pending additional paleomagnetic data from above and below the currently sampled sequence.Thus, the 190 m paleomagnetic section that covers the majority of the Ramnagar fossil sites, and all of the Lower Siwalik primate sites, is interpreted here to to GPTS Chrons C5Ar.3r through C5An.1n (>13.032 Ma to <12.174 Ma). This correlation implies that the entire Ramnagar section from Kulwanta to Dalsar covers a time period of ~13.8–11.5 Ma, or the equivalent of the Chinji Formation and the bottom of the Nagri Formation on the Potwar Plateau.

Implications for the timing of primate evolution

Our preferred paleomagnetic correlation (Option 2) places the FAD of Sivapithecus indicus at Rashole within C5Ar3r, between 12.887 and 13.032 Ma, which is ~ 100,000–200,000 years older than the FAD reported from the Chinji Formation in Pakistan at ~12.8 Ma [22,24,28,4850]. However, any of the three possible correlations options enumerated above results in an earlier FAD for Sivapithecus, ranging from ~100 (Option 3) to 500 (Option 1) thousand years earlier than recorded on the Potwar Plateau. An older FAD for Sivapithecus at Ramnagar compared to the Potwar Plateau was previously suggested by Sehgal and Patnaik [9], and the biostratigraphic, paleomagnetic, and sedimentological data presented here support their chronological inference, at least in part (i.e., the main section S9-S15). While the current evidence therefore suggests a slight extension to the known Sivapithecus time range, it is notable because previous studies have suggested that C5Ar.1n (site Y750 on the Potwar Plateau) likely represents a reliable FAD for Sivapithecus in the Lower Siwaliks based on concentrated efforts to find older specimens within the Chinji Formation without success [22,49]. Thus, given the rarity of fossil apes in the Siwaliks, and the relatively complete sequence and fossiliferous nature of the Potwar Plateau, it has been reasonably hypothesized that the absence of Sivapithecus below C5Ar.1n (12.77 Ma) is indicative of a true absence before this time period [22]. While it is unclear why Sivapithecus should appear slightly earlier in the Ramnagar sequence relative to the Potwar Plateau, slight taphonomic differences and/or the nature of chance/random sampling in the fossil record are possible explanations. If any of our currently hypothesized correlations are correct, is also possible that Sivapithecus specimens may yet be recovered from the lower sections of the Chinji Fm. on the Potwar Plateau.

In addition to Sivapithecus, the known age ranges of the stem hylobatid Kapi ramnagarensis and the sivaladapid Ramadapis sahnii, both found at the site of Sunetar 2, can also be refined. Because both Rashole and Sunetar 2 are derived from the same stratigraphic level just above S9, Sunetar 2 would also correlate to ~12.887–13.032 Ma (Option 2, our preferred correlation). Incorporating the next likely correlation (Option 3), we can slightly expand this estimated time range as anywhere between ~12.770–13.032 Ma. As noted by Gilbert [17], the co-occurrence of Sivapithecus and Kapi at the same stratigraphic level ~12.770–13.032 Ma has important biogeographic implications for the dispersal of these fossil apes from Africa to Asia shortly after the Miocene Climate Optimum, suggesting that both the greater and lesser ape lineages were dispersing into Asia by this time, perhaps as a part of the same faunal dispersal event.

Conclusions

This study helps to refine the geochronology of the Ramnagar section and the important primates within the succession. The currently available paleomagnetic, biochronological, and lithostratigraphic data combined with estimated sedimentation rates suggests that Ramnagar likely correlates to a time period equivalent to the entire Chinji Formation and lowest part of the Nagri Formation on the Potwar Plateau, ~ 14–11.5 Ma. It constrains almost all the primate yielding sites from Ramnagar between ~13.03 Ma and ~11.55 Ma and, based on the most likely correlation to the GPTS, the FAD of the likely stem hylobatid Kapi ramnagarensis, sivaladapid Ramadapis sahnii, and great ape Sivapithecus can now be placed between ~12.8–13.0 Ma, suggesting the first occurrence of Sivapithecus at Ramnagar occurs 100–200 kyr earlier than on the Potwar Plateau.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Section near Songer River bridge toward Sunetar, located approximately 30 meters above S9.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s001.tif (5.3MB, tif)
S2 Fig. Pebbly sandstone unit S22, identified as the oldest sandstone of the Middle Siwalik.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s002.tif (5.3MB, tif)
S3 Fig. Rounded pebble embedded within unit S22.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s003.tif (4.9MB, tif)
S4 Fig. Measuring paleosol P15 using Jacob staff and Abney level.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s004.tif (4.3MB, tif)
S5 Fig. Continuity of sandstone unit S1 toward the dip direction, similar to S9 and S15.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s005.tif (748.3KB, tif)
S6 Fig. Continuity of sandstone unit S1 toward the dip direction and P1 Above S1 near Kulwanta Government School.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s006.tif (3.3MB, tif)
S7 Fig. Uppermost part of paleosol P4 situated above sandstone unit S4, representing fossil locality Ritti-Mitti-2.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s007.tif (1.2MB, tif)
S8 Fig. Thaplal primate site (P18) located above sandstone unit S15.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s008.tif (3.8MB, tif)
S9 Fig. Thick paleosol (P17) situated between S14 and S15, near Bassi locality.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s009.tif (3.8MB, tif)
S10 Fig. Occlusal view of RRA-123, left dp 4 -m1 of Paraulacodus indicus from Rashole.

Thryonomyid dental terminology and measurements used for RRA-123 lower dentition.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s010.tif (225.4KB, tif)
S11 Fig. Observed magnetic polarity stratigraphy (MPTS) is plotted against the standard geomagnetic polarity timescale (GPTS; Ogg, 2020) to assess sediment accumulation rates (SAR) for Options 1 & 3.

(TIF)

pone.0343500.s011.tif (404KB, tif)
S1 Table. Palemagnetic data sampling information.

(XLSX)

pone.0343500.s012.xlsx (11KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Least Square data of each sample and VGP.

(XLSX)

pone.0343500.s013.xlsx (39KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Site Mean and VGP.

(XLSX)

pone.0343500.s014.xlsx (13.5KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. Comparative measurements of Megacricetodon and Democricetodon relative to Dehari cricetid.

(XLSX)

pone.0343500.s015.xlsx (14KB, xlsx)
S5 Table. Sediment accumulation rate of three possible scenarios and Extrapolated Age.

(XLSX)

pone.0343500.s016.xlsx (12KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

• D.C. received support from the Leakey Foundation (https://leakeyfoundation.org), grant S202410509. • C.G., C.C., B.P., and R.P. received support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) (https://www.nsf.gov), awards BCS 1945736, BCS 1945618, and BCS 1945743. • R.P. received support from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India (https://moes.gov.in), grant MoES/P.O.(Geosci)/46/2015, and from the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Government of India (https://www.serb.gov.in), grant HRR/2018/000063. • C.G. received support from the PSC CUNY Faculty Award Program, Hunter College (https://www.rfcuny.org). • B.P. received support from the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA) Professional Development Grant Program (https://physanth.org), the University of Southern California (USC) (https://www.usc.edu), and the Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State University (IHO/ASU) (https://iho.asu.edu). The sponsors or funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Brown B, Gregory WK, Hellman M. On three incomplete anthropoid jaws from the Siwaliks, India. Am Mus Novit. 1924;130:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pilgrim GE. A Sivapithecus plate and other primate fossils from India. Palaeontol Indica. 1927;14:1–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Colbert EH. Siwalik Mammals in the American Museum of Natural History. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 1935;26:i. doi: 10.2307/1005467 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Vasishat RN, Gaur R, Chopra SRK. Geology, fauna and palaeoenvironments of Lower Sivalik deposits around Ramnagar, India. Nature. 1978;275(5682):736–7. doi: 10.1038/275736a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gaur R, Chopra SRK. Palaeoecology of the middle miocene sivalik sediments of a part of Jammu and Kashmir state (India). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 1983;43(3–4):313–27. doi: 10.1016/0031-0182(83)90016-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nanda AC, Sehgal RK. Siwalik Mammalian Faunas from Ramnagar (J. & K.) and Nurpur (H.P.) and Lower Limit of Hipparion. Journal Geological Society of India. 1993;42(2):115–34. doi: 10.17491/jgsi/1993/420202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Basu PK. Siwalik mammals of the Jammu Sub-Himalaya, India: an appraisal of their diversity and habitats. Quaternary International. 2004;117(1):105–18. doi: 10.1016/s1040-6182(03)00120-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Parmar V, Prasad GVR. Middle Miocene rhizomyid rodent (Mammalia) from the Lower Siwalik Subgroub of Ramnagar, Udhampur District, Jammu and Kashmir, India. njgpm. 2006;2006(6):371–84. doi: 10.1127/njgpm/2006/2006/371 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sehgal RK, Patnaik R. New muroid rodent and Sivapithecus dental remains from the Lower Siwalik deposits of Ramnagar (J&K, India): Age implication. Quaternary International. 2012;269:69–73. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2011.01.043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Parmar V, Magotra R, Norboo R, Prasad GVR. Rodent-based age appraisal of the Lower Siwalik Subgroup of Kalaunta, Ramnagar, Jammu, India. Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology. 2016;41(1):124–33. doi: 10.1080/03115518.2016.1196435 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Parmar V, Norboo R, Magotra R. First record of Erinaceidae and Talpidae from the Miocene Siwalik deposits of India. Historical Biology. 2022;35(2):276–83. doi: 10.1080/08912963.2022.2034806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Parmar V, Norboo R, Magotra R, Kshetrimayum DS. Cricetid rodents from the Middle Miocene Siwalik exposure of Kalaunta (Jammu), NW Himalaya, India. Arab J Geosci. 2022;15(19). doi: 10.1007/s12517-022-10849-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Parmar V, Prasad GVR, Kumar J, Malik MA, Norboo R. Cricetid rodents from the Lower Siwalik Subgroup of Jammu, India: Biochronological significance. Palaeoworld. 2015;24(3):324–35. doi: 10.1016/j.palwor.2014.12.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Parmar V, Norboo R, Kshetrimayum DS, Magotra R. Muroid rodents from the Lower Siwalik deposits near Ramnagar (Jammu and Kashmir), India: Biostratigraphic implication. Geobios. 2025;91:89–101. doi: 10.1016/j.geobios.2024.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Singh NP, Gilbert CC, Patel BA, Patnaik R. The taphonomy and palaeoecology of the Middle Miocene hominoid locality of Ramnagar (Jammu and Kashmir, India). Journal of Asian Earth Sciences. 2018;162:69–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2018.02.020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sehgal RK, Singh AP, Gilbert CC, Patel BA, Campisano CJ, Selig KR, et al. A new genus of treeshrew and other micromammals from the middle Miocene hominoid locality of Ramnagar, Udhampur District, Jammu and Kashmir, India. J Paleontol. 2022;96:1318–35. doi: 10.1017/jpa.2022.41 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gilbert CC, Ortiz A, Pugh KD, Campisano CJ, Patel BA, Singh NP, et al. New Middle Miocene Ape (Primates: Hylobatidae) from Ramnagar, India fills major gaps in the hominoid fossil record. Proc R Soc B. 2020;287(1934):20201655. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gilbert CC, Patel BA, Friedman AC, Pugh KD, Fleagle JG, Patnaik R. New lower Siwalik localities near Ramnagar, India: implication for the earliest Asian great apes and other mammalian lineages. Palaeontol Soc India Spec Publ. 2014;5:353–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gilbert CC, Patel BA, Singh NP, Campisano CJ, Fleagle JG, Rust KL, et al. New sivaladapid primate from Lower Siwalik deposits surrounding Ramnagar (Jammu and Kashmir State), India. J Hum Evol. 2017;102:21–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gilbert CC, Sehgal RK, Pugh KD, Campisano CJ, May E, Patel BA, et al. New Sivapithecus specimen from Ramnagar (Jammu and Kashmir), India and a taxonomic revision of Ramnagar hominoids. Journal of Human Evolution. 2019;135:102665. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102665 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Johnson NM, Opdyke ND, Johnson GD, Lindsay EH, Tahirkheli RAK. Magnetic polarity stratigraphy and ages of Siwalik group rocks of the potwar plateau, Pakistan. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 1982;37(1):17–42. doi: 10.1016/0031-0182(82)90056-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kappelman J, Kelley J, Pilbeam D, Sheikh KA, Ward S, Anwar M, et al. The earliest occurrence ofSivapithecus from the middle Miocene Chinji Formation of Pakistan. Journal of Human Evolution. 1991;21(1):61–73. doi: 10.1016/0047-2484(91)90036-u [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Flynn LJ, Lindsay EH, Pilbeam D, Raza SM, Morgan ME, Barry JC. Fossil mammals of Asia: the Siwaliks and Neogene evolutionary biology in South Asia. New York: Columbia University Press. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Barry JC, Behrensmeyer AK, Badgley CE, Flynn LJ, Peltonen HA, Cheema IU, et al. Fossil mammals of Asia: the Neogene Siwaliks of the Potwar Plateau, Pakistan. New York: Columbia University Press. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Behrensmeyer AK, Barry JC. Rocks, rivers, and time. In: Badgley C, Morgan ME, Pilbeam D, editors. At the Foot of the Himalayas: Paleontology and Ecosystem Dynamics of the Siwalik Record. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2025. p. 12–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Flynn JJ, Swisher CC. Cenozoic South American land mammal ages: correlation to global geochronologies. In: Berggren WA, Kent DV, Aubry M-P, Hardenbol J, editors. Geochronology, time scales and global stratigraphic correlation. Tulsa: Society for Sedimentary Geology. 1995. p. 317–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Flynn LJ, Morgan ME, Barry JC, Raza SM, Cheema IU, Pilbeam D. Siwalik rodent assemblages for NOW: biostratigraphic resolution in the Neogene of South Asia. In: Fortelius M, Eronen JT, Liu L, editors. Evolution of Cenozoic land mammal faunas and ecosystems: 25 years of the NOW database of fossil mammals. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2023. p. 43–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kimura Y, Flynn LJ, Jacobs LL. Tempo and Mode: Evidence on a Protracted Split From a Dense Fossil Record. Front Ecol Evol. 2021;9. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.642814 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ogg JG. Geomagnetic polarity time scale. In: Gradstein FM, Ogg JG, Schmitz MD, Ogg GM, editors. Geologic Time Scale 2020. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2020. pp. 159–192. 10.1016/B978-0-12-824360-2.00005-X [DOI]
  • 30.Gupta SS, Verma BC. Stratigraphy and Vertebrate Fauna of the Siwalik Group, Mansar-Uttarbaini Section, Jammu District, J&K. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India. 1988;33(1):117–24. doi: 10.1177/0971102319880110 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gupta SS. Lithostratigraphy and structure of the Siwalik succession and its relationship with the Murree succession around Ramnagar area, Udhampur district. Himal Geol. 2000;21:53–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Enkin R, Wuolle K, McCann C, Carretero M, Voroney M, Baylis T, et al. PMGSC–paleomagnetism data analysis. Geological Survey of Canada. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cogné JP. PaleoMac: A Macintosh™ application for treating paleomagnetic data and making plate reconstructions. Geochem Geophys Geosyst. 2003;4(1). doi: 10.1029/2001gc000227 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jones CH. User-driven integrated software lives: “Paleomag” paleomagnetics analysis on the Macintosh. Computers & Geosciences. 2002;28(10):1145–51. doi: 10.1016/s0098-3004(02)00032-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chadima M, Hrouda F. Remasoft 3.0: a user-friendly paleomagnetic data browser and analyzer. Travaux Géophysiques. 2006;27:20–1. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zijderveld JDA. The natural remanent magnetizations of the exeter volcanic traps (Permian, Europe). Tectonophysics. 1967;4(2):121–53. doi: 10.1016/0040-1951(67)90048-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kirschvink JL. The least-squares line and plane and the analysis of palaeomagnetic data. Geophys J Int. 1980;62(3):699–718. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1980.tb02601.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Halls HC. The use of converging remagnetization circles in palaeomagnetism. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 1978;16(1):1–11. doi: 10.1016/0031-9201(78)90095-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.McFadden PL, McElhinny MW. The combined analysis of remagnetization circles and direct observations in palaeomagnetism. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 1988;87(1–2):161–72. doi: 10.1016/0012-821x(88)90072-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fisher R. Dispersion on a Sphere. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 1953;217(1130):295–305. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1953.0064 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Watson GS. A test for randomness of directions. Geophysical Journal International. 1956;7:160–1. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1956.tb05561.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lowrie W. Identification of ferromagnetic minerals in a rock by coercivity and unblocking temperature properties. Geophysical Research Letters. 1990;17(2):159–62. doi: 10.1029/gl017i002p00159 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ullah K. Lithofacies, petrography, and geochemistry of the Neogene molasse sequence of Himalayan foreland basin, southwestern Kohat, Pakistan. PhD dissertation, University of Peshawar, Peshawar; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Torsvik TH, Müller RD, Van der Voo R, Steinberger B, Gaina C. Global plate motion frames: Toward a unified model. Reviews of Geophysics. 2008;46(3). doi: 10.1029/2007rg000227 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Patnaik R, Choudhary D, Gilbert CC, Patel BA, Shandil M, Dhiman K, et al. A cane rat of African affinity from the Middle Miocene ape locality of Ramnagar (J&K), India. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2025. doi: 10.1002/ar.70071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Flynn LJ. Siwalik Lagomorphs and Rodents. In: Badgley C, Morgan M, Pilbeam D, editors. At the Foot of the Himalayas: Paleontology and Ecosystem Dynamics of the Siwalik Record. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2025. pp. 163–198. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bhandari A, Bajpai S, Flynn LJ, Tiwari BN, Mandal N. First Miocene rodents from Kutch, western India. Historical Biology. 2021;33(12):3471–9. doi: 10.1080/08912963.2020.1870970 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Barry JC, Morgan ME, Flynn LJ, Pilbeam D, Behrensmeyer AK, Raza SM, et al. Faunal and environmental change in the late Miocene Siwaliks of northern Pakistan. Paleobiology. 2002;28(sp3):1–71. doi: 10.1666/0094-8373(2002)28[1:faecit]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kelley J, Lieberman D, Smith RW. Interpreting the Past: Essays on Human, Primate, and Mammal Evolution. Leiden: Brill. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Badgley C, Barry JC, Morgan ME, Nelson SV, Behrensmeyer AK, Cerling TE, et al. Ecological changes in Miocene mammalian record show impact of prolonged climatic forcing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(34):12145–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0805592105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Shamim Ahmad

7 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Deepak Choudhary,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 21 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shamim Ahmad, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported human remain specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location.

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS One's requirements for paleontology and archeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“Funding generously provided by: Leakey Foundation Grant S202410509; NSF BCS Awards 1945736, 1945618,1945743; MoES/P.O.(Geosci)/46/2015 and SERB-HRR/2018/000063; PSC-CUNY faculty award program; Hunter College; AAPA professional development grant program; USC; IHO/ASU.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“•          D.C. received support from the Leakey Foundation (https://leakeyfoundation.org), grant S202410509.

•            C.G., C.C., B.P., and R.P. received support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) (https://www.nsf.gov), awards BCS‑1945736, BCS‑1945618, and BCS‑1945743.

•            R.P. received support from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India (https://moes.gov.in), grant MoES/P.O.(Geosci)/46/2015, and from the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Government of India (https://www.serb.gov.in), grant HRR/2018/000063.

•            C.G. received support from the PSC‑CUNY Faculty Award Program, Hunter College (https://www.rfcuny.org).

•            B.P. received support from the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA) Professional Development Grant Program (https://physanth.org), the University of Southern California (USC) (https://www.usc.edu), and the Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State University (IHO/ASU) (https://iho.asu.edu).

The sponsors or funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr Deepak Choudhary,

This manuscript has been reviewed by three independent reviewers, and the authors are kindly requested to carefully go through the comments provided and address them appropriately. The manuscript requires revision before it can be considered for acceptance.

This study presents an important and timely contribution by establishing, for the first time, a magnetostratigraphic framework for the middle Miocene primate-bearing fossil sites of Ramnagar, India. The work fills a critical gap in Siwalik chronostratigraphy, which has been extensively developed for the Potwar Plateau in Pakistan but has remained poorly constrained for Indian localities despite their rich vertebrate fossil record, including key hominoids such as Sivapithecus, Kapi, and Ramadapis. The integration of paleomagnetic data with biochronological evidence is a major strength of the manuscript, and the proposed age bracket of 12.88–13.03 Ma for the primate-bearing horizons is particularly significant, as it pushes back the known first appearance datum (FAD) of Sivapithecus by approximately 200 kyr.

With respect to the paleontological interpretation, I agree with the authors that the option 2–based correlation appears to be the most plausible and internally consistent with the currently known murine fossil record. However, the biochronological constraint seems to rely heavily on the identification and interpretation of relatively scarce Antemus-like fossil material. If this taxonomic assignment were to be revised or proven incorrect, the robustness of the option 2 correlation could be weakened. In this context, the manuscript would be strengthened by the inclusion of photographs or detailed illustrations of the relevant fossil material, allowing readers to better evaluate the biological evidence supporting this correlation.

Additionally, the discussion presented in lines 510–520 is somewhat difficult to follow. This section would benefit from refinement and clarification, particularly with respect to explicitly explaining why the option 2–based correlation is preferred over alternative correlations and how it best reconciles the magnetostratigraphic and biochronological data.

Finally, the authors note that pedogenic modification is recognized within the paleosol units. Given that many of the Ramnagar fossils are recovered from paleosol horizons, a more detailed pedogenic description would be highly valuable. Expanded discussion of paleosol characteristics (e.g., horizon development, carbonate accumulation, root traces, or other pedogenic features) would provide important context for fossil preservation and enhance the paleoenvironmental interpretation.

With Regards,

Dr S Ahmad

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,

This is an interesting article that provide a magnetostratigraphic framework for primate-bearing fossil sites in the middle Miocene of India. Siwalik deposits are well described and examined chronologically in the Potwar Plateau, Pakistan, whereas paleomagnetic framework has not be installed in the middle Miocene localities of Ramnagar, India, even though important fossil localities, including ones with fossil primates (Sivapithecus, Kapi and Ramadapis), have been reported. This study established magnetostratigraphy of the fossil-yielding sites in Ramnagar and dated the primate sites to be between 12.88 and 13.03 Ma. Their results push back the known FAD of Sivapithecus back by 200,000 years.

Here are my comments relevant to paleontology.

I agree with the authors that option 2-based correlation is most plausible and consistent with the fossil record of murines. My understanding is that the biochronological estimateof the fossil record is dependent on the interpretation of scarce materials of Antemus-like fossils. If this assignment is incorrect, option 2 is not the most likely correlation. Is it correct? In this case, I would appreciate if photos of the fossils are available in this manuscript so that biological evidence is clear. Also, I found the discussion in lines 510-520 a bit difficult to follow. I would appreciate if the authors refine the discussion to decipher why option 2-based correlation is most plausible.

The authors wrote that pedogenic modification is recognized in the paleosol units. I think pedogenic description would be appreciated as most fossils from Ramnagar are found from paleosol levels.

P6, line 127: Isnt “cross-section” more common than “transverse” for a geological map?

P7, line 140: delete a comma after Figs. 2.

P8, Table 1: In this table, primate taxa are associated with key sandstones. However, most fossils are produced from paleosol. I thought this table is misleading and needs to be changed. The label “New Section” must be mistaken.

Figure 4: I just wanna let you know that in the NRM thermal demagnetization graph, open circles are too small to see.

P18, line 357-358: “reversals” to “intervals”

P25, line 517: Insert “the” before most likely

P22, Line 451: I would say “dated to an age between”.

Reviewer #2: First of all, the section (190 m) is very small for Magnetostratigraphic study. Getting several reversals within 190 m section is questionable, however, the authors tried to give various reasons and divided the interpretation in three options, but I must warn the authors that this is not a good practice to adjust the local MPS correlation with GPTS in this fashion using Bio (fossils) rather I would suggest to use reversal polarity events for the correlation with GPTS. The sampling part is not sufficient enough to get an average mean VGP latitude. I have made several comments in the annotated pdf manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The authors have utilised multiple evidences on lithostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy and biochronology to provide an age context to the Lower Siwalik deposits at Ramnagar (north India) and its correlation to the Chinji and Nagri formations (Potwar Plateau) in a GPTS framework. An age range between ~13.03 Ma and ~11.59 Ma for the various primate yielding localities of Ramnagar (north India) has been constrained in the study. An integrated research on stratigraphy by the authors holds significance, as it may assist in better understanding the Neogene primate evolution of the subcontinent in a palaeobiogeographic context. All figures are of good quality. In view of the above, the manuscript should be accepted for publication.

I do have a few minor suggestions for the authors, and believe that they can be addressed during the proofing stage.

Minor suggestions:

Maintain consistency (as per Fig 7, and up to 2 decimal places) throughout the text while mentioning the numerical ages and/or age ranges. For instance, the FAD of the likely stem hylobatid Kapi ramnagarensis, sivaladapid Ramadapis sahnii, and the great ape Sivapithecus: 12.88-13.03 Ma and/or 12.8-13.0 Ma (refer to sections ‘Abstract’, ‘Implications for the timing of primate evolution’, ‘Conclusions’).

Vivesh Vir Kapur

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-57067.pdf

pone.0343500.s017.pdf (5.1MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0343500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343500.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Feb 2026

Date: January 31, 2026

Journal: PLOS ONE

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-57067

Title: Geochronological Insights of Middle Miocene Primates and Vertebrate Fauna of Ramnagar (J&K, India): Integrating Litho- and Magnetostratigraphy.

To: The Academic Editor and Reviewers

Subject: Response to Reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their thorough and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We believe these changes have significantly strengthened the paper.

As requested, we have provided:

1. Response to Reviewers (this document)

2. Revised Manuscript with Track Changes (highlighting all modifications)

3. Manuscript (a clean version with all changes accepted)

Below is our point-by-point response to the reviewer comments.

Part 1: Response to Reviewer #1

Reviewer Comment 1: I agree with the authors that Option 2-based correlation is most plausible... My understanding is that the biochronological estimate... is dependent on the interpretation of scarce Antemus-like fossils... If this assignment is incorrect, option 2 is not the most likely correlation. Is it correct? In this case, I would appreciate if photos of the fossils are available... Also, I found the discussion in lines 510-520 a bit difficult to follow.

Author Response: We thank the reviewer for their agreement that Option 2 is the most plausible correlation. We would like to clarify the points raised regarding the fossil evidence and discussion:

1. Dependence on Antemus-like fossils: We clarify that our biochronological assessment and preference for Option 2 is not dependent on the presence or absence of Antemus, and instead incorporates numerous time-constrained rodent taxa. Regarding Antemus more specifically, it is true that some options are more likely than others based on the ultimate identification of some small samples from various localities as Antemus or post-Antemus, and again these are enumerated in the Discussion section of the manuscript. Regarding Option 2, the possibilities that the small sample of Bassi specimens represents Antemus OR “post-Antemus”, a form more derived than Antemus chinjiensis, are discussed, and given the known rodent fossil time-gap between the LAD of A. chijiensis and post-Antemus (~12.7-12.4 Ma), either taxonomic possibility is consistent with the age proposed in Option 2, whereas Option 1 is most consistent with Antemus chinjiensis and Option 3 is most consistent with post-Antemus. Therefore, the plausibility of Option 2 is not negatively affected by the taxonomy of these specimens, whether ultimately determined to be Antemus or post-Antemus. We discuss these scenarios more fully in the text.

2. Request for Fossil Photos:

o Regarding the Antemus specimens: As these specimens have been previously described and illustrated in published literature, we have provided the necessary citations (Lines 395–406) rather than reproducing the images in the main text.

o Regarding Paraulacodus indicus: At the time of our initial submission, the descriptive paper for this species [27] was under review. It has since been published. However, to ensure the biological evidence is immediately clear to readers as requested, we have retained the photograph of P. indicus in Supplementary Figure 10.

3. Discussion Clarity (Lines 510–520): We have revised the discussion section to improve readability. Specifically, we have rearranged the paragraph order to create a more logical flow, making the argument for Option 2 easier to follow.

Reviewer Comment 2: P6, line 127: Isnt “cross-section” more common than “traverse” for a geological map?

Author Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, we have retained the term “traverse” because it specifically describes the linear path followed during fieldwork to measure the stratigraphic thickness. This is distinct from a “cross-section,” which typically implies a constructed interpretation of the subsurface geometry. In this context, "traverse" more accurately reflects the methodology used to collect the data.

Reviewer Comment 3: P7, line 140: delete a comma after Figs. 2.

Author Response: Corrected as suggested.

Reviewer Comment 4: P8, Table 1: In this table, primate taxa are associated with key sandstones. However, most fossils are produced from paleosol. I thought this table is misleading and needs to be changed. The label “New Section” must be mistaken.

Author Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this ambiguity. We have revised Table 1 to explicitly separate the lithological markers (sandstones) from the fossiliferous strata (paleosols). Specifically, we added a new column titled "Fossiliferous Paleosol Horizon" to link primate taxa directly to their specific paleosol layers rather than the sandstone units. We also corrected the header to "New Section (This Study)" and updated the caption to reflect these distinctions.

Reviewer Comment 5: Figure 4: I just wanna let you know that in the NRM thermal demagnetization graph, open circles are too small to see.

Author Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We have double-checked the original high-resolution (300 DPI) TIFF file submitted for publication, and the open circles are clearly distinguishable. The visibility issue may be due to the compression of the PDF generated for the review process. We have chosen to retain the current symbol size to ensure that closely spaced data points remain distinct and do not obscure one another.

Reviewer Comment 6: P18, line 357-358; The reviewer suggested changing "reversals" to "interval" in the sentence:

Author Response: We agree with the reviewer. The term "polarity intervals" is stratigraphically more accurate than "reversals" when referring to the magnetozones defined in the section. We have amended the text accordingly in the revised manuscript

Reviewer Comment 7: P22, Line 451: I would say “dated to an age between”

Author Response: Corrected as suggested.

Reviewer Comment 8: P25, line 517: Insert “the” before most likely

Author Response: Corrected as suggested.

Response to Reviewer #2 (General Comment)

Reviewer Comment: First of all, the section (190 m) is very small all for Magnetostratigraphic study. Getting several reversals within 190 m section is questionable... I must warn the authors that this is not a good practice to adjust the local MPS correlation with GPTS in this fashion using Bio (fossils) rather I would suggest to use reversal polarity events for the correlation with GPTS. The sampling part is not sufficient enough to get an average mean VGP latitude.

Author Response: We thank the reviewer for their critical assessment. We understand the concerns regarding the section thickness and correlation strategy. However, we would like to provide the following justifications for our methodology, which aligns with established practices in terrestrial magnetostratigraphy:

1. Section Thickness (190 m) and Polarity Frequency:

We acknowledge that 190 m is a relatively short section compared to basin-wide studies; however, it accurately represents the specific stratigraphic context of the fossiliferous localities at Ramnagar. The observation of multiple reversals within this thickness is consistent with both the sediment accumulation rate and the known magnetic polarity history of the time period. Specifically, the Middle Miocene is characterized by a high frequency of geomagnetic reversals (Ogg, 2020). Consequently, even a condensed section with a lower sediment accumulation rate would naturally record a higher density of reversal events per meter. We have reported the polarity pattern exactly as preserved in the rock record, and our high-resolution sampling ensures these are accurately identified geomagnetic events rather than artifacts.

2. Correlation Strategy (Integration of Biochronology and GPTS):

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer regarding the utility of biostratigraphic constraints. In terrestrial sequences like the Siwaliks, the magnetic polarity pattern is often non-unique and effectively acts as a "bar code" that repeats. Without independent anchor points, such as isotopic ages or biostratigraphic markers, it is impossible to uniquely correlate a short magnetic section to the GPTS.

Our methodology follows the established chronostratigraphic protocols developed for the Siwalik Group. Notably, in the adjacent Potwar Plateau of Pakistan, a robust and widely accepted geochronological framework has been constructed precisely by integrating magnetostratigraphy with a well-established rodent biochronology [21-26]. We have applied this same proven regional methodology to the Ramnagar section.

Therefore, using faunal constraints to filter valid correlation options is not "adjusting" the data but is rather the standard method of integrated magneto stratigraphy. We presented three options to ensure scientific transparency, demonstrating that Option 2 is currently the most likely scenario the only scenario that satisfies both the objective magnetic polarity pattern and the independent biological evidence.

3. Sampling Sufficiency:

We maintain that our sampling density is sufficient to determine reliable magnetic polarity stratigraphy. Although the section is stratigraphically short, the site mean directions yield robust statistical parameters (i.e, Fisher precision parameter k and α95 indicating coherent clustering of magnetic vectors).

Furthermore, the primary objective of this study was to establish a polarity-based chronological framework for the specific fossil horizons, rather than to conduct a detailed study of geomagnetic secular variation. Given the statistical rigor of the site mean directions, the derived VGP latitudes are sufficiently robust to distinguish clearly between Normal and Reverse polarity states, which is the requisite standard for magnetostratigraphic correlation

Part 2: Response to Reviewer #2 (PDF Annotations)

Reviewer Comment: Refers to the annotated PDF manuscript.

Author Response: We have carefully reviewed all the annotations provided in the PDF. We have incorporated the majority of the suggested editorial and grammatical corrections into the revised manuscript. In a few specific instances, we have chosen to retain the original phrasing to ensure the precise scientific meaning is conveyed or to maintain consistency with our terminology. All substantive scientific comments raised in the annotations have been addressed in the point-by-point response above.

Reviewer Comment (L-142): Why the authors have not sampled all 440 m sequence?

Author Response: Already answered in previous comment. Further, at this time, additional sampling and analysis are beyond the scope of the work presented here and would not change the overall conclusions.

Reviewer Comment (Line -145): Does this primate-bearing locations are good enough to ample for paleomagnetic study as there is an interruption in the remanence?

Author Response: We wish to clarify the lithological context of the fossil sites. The primate-bearing horizons in the Ramnagar section predominantly occur as thin layers of pseudoconglomerate intercalated within the mudstone/paleosol units.

For the paleomagnetic study, we specifically targeted the fine-grained matrix and the immediately associated mudstones/paleosols (typically 1 to 40 cm below the sandstone). These fine-grained lithologies provided high-quality data with stable Characteristic Remanent Magnetization (ChRM) directions, effectively ruling out significant secondary overprinting or interruption of the remanence.

Reviewer Comment (line-161): Is this method of lithostratigraphic correlation between fossil localities valid?

Author Response: We are confident that our lithostratigraphic correlations are robust. Importantly, we did not rely solely on paleomagnetism to correlate the localities. Instead, our primary method was physical lithostratigraphic correlation based on extensive fieldwork and walk-over surveys. We validated the continuity of the fossiliferous horizons by conducting three distinct strike-parallel traverses (Thaplal to Dehari, Ramnagar-Dalsar Bridge to Dehari, and Suntar to Dehari). By physically tracing the key marker sandstone beds across these traverses, we established a direct structural connection between the main section and the outlying fossil localities. The paleomagnetic results served as a secondary verification, and confirm the stratigraphic equivalence established by our field

Reviewer Comment (L-163): Were the samples consolidated or friable? Needs an explanation as the authors mentioned that they collected block samples and sandstones/mudstones are fine grained and mostly are unconsolidated state.

Author Response: We respectfully refer the reviewer to Lines 176–178 of the manuscript, where this explanation is already provided

Reviewer Comment (L-165-167): I don't think 2-3 samples per site is good enough for Magnetostratigraphy study. I prefer minimum of 5 samples per site would give good average of the site VGP latitude.

Author Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding sample density. While we agree that higher sample counts are advantageous, our sampling strategy aligns with established methodologies for high-resolution terrestrial magnetostratigraphy (see for example Zeigler and Kodama, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803243-5.00005-4; Tauxe et al., 2018, https://earthref.org/MagIC/books/Tauxe/Essentials/. ). Importantly, recent studies in comparable terrestrial successions (e.g., Flynn et al., 2020, ( https://doi.org/10.1130/B35481.1.) have successfully established robust age models using site means derived from a minimum of three reliable samples.

Following the protocol of Flynn et al. (2020), we prioritized statistical reliability over raw quantity. We validated our site means using Fisher statistics, accepting only those sites where the clustering of vectors demonstrated a clear characteristic remanence (ChRM) distinct from random scatter. Sites that failed to meet these rigorous statistical criteria (high α95 or low k) were excluded from the analysis.

Therefore, even with N=3, the statistical coherence of our site means combined with their stratigraphic consistency confirms that they accurately record the primary geomagnetic polarity.

Reviewer Comment: Why Alternating Field demagnetization (AFD) was not carried out?

Author Response: Alternating Field (AF) demagnetization was not utilized because the primary magnetic carrier in these oxidized sediments is high-coercivity hematite, which typically resists standard AF peak fields (>100 mT). We therefore employed stepwise thermal demagnetization, the established protocol for red beds, which successfully isolated the stable Characteristic Remanent Magnetization (ChRM) up to 680°C.

Reviewer Comment (L-198-199): Using which Instrument?

Author Response: The details of the instrumentation are already provided in the "Methodology" section of the manuscript. As specified in Lines 222–223, all thermal demagnetization procedures were conducted using an ASC Scientific controlled atmosphere thermal demagnetizer in an inert nitrogen (N2) atmosphere to prevent oxidation

Reviewer Comment (L-205-206): The ChRM was extracted from at least four remanent vector endpoints aligned linearly toward the origin and had a maximum angle of deviation (MAD) < 20°. (Reviewer: it too high)

Author Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to our data selection criteria. We wish to clarify that while we set a conservative upper threshold of MAD < 20°, the vast majority of our specimens yielded significantly higher precision. Specifically, 96.7% of our analyzed samples possess a MAD < 15°, with only a minor fraction (3.3%) falling between 15° and 20°. We retained the < 20° cutoff to remain consistent with established methodologies for terrestrial magnetostratigraphy in similar depositional settings. For example, Flynn et al. (2020) employed a MAD < 20° threshold for Paleocene terrestrial sediments in the San Juan Basin. Furthermore, our criteria were stricter than the cited study regarding linearity; whereas Flynn et al. (2020) accepted lines based on three points, we required a

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0343500.s019.docx (33.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Shamim Ahmad

8 Feb 2026

<p>Geochronological Insights of Middle Miocene Primates and Vertebrate Fauna of Ramnagar (J&K, India): Integrating Litho- and Magnetostratigraphy

PONE-D-25-57067R1

Dear Dr. Choudhary,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shamim Ahmad, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr Choudhary,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript, “Geochronological Insights of Middle Miocene Primates and Vertebrate Fauna of Ramnagar (J&K, India): Integrating Litho- and Magnetostratigraphy,” has been accepted for publication. Congratulations, and thank you for choosing PLOS ONE. We wish you continued success in your future research endeavors.

Sincerely,

Dr S Ahmad

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Shamim Ahmad

PONE-D-25-57067R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Choudhary,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shamim Ahmad

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Section near Songer River bridge toward Sunetar, located approximately 30 meters above S9.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s001.tif (5.3MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Pebbly sandstone unit S22, identified as the oldest sandstone of the Middle Siwalik.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s002.tif (5.3MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Rounded pebble embedded within unit S22.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s003.tif (4.9MB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Measuring paleosol P15 using Jacob staff and Abney level.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s004.tif (4.3MB, tif)
    S5 Fig. Continuity of sandstone unit S1 toward the dip direction, similar to S9 and S15.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s005.tif (748.3KB, tif)
    S6 Fig. Continuity of sandstone unit S1 toward the dip direction and P1 Above S1 near Kulwanta Government School.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s006.tif (3.3MB, tif)
    S7 Fig. Uppermost part of paleosol P4 situated above sandstone unit S4, representing fossil locality Ritti-Mitti-2.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s007.tif (1.2MB, tif)
    S8 Fig. Thaplal primate site (P18) located above sandstone unit S15.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s008.tif (3.8MB, tif)
    S9 Fig. Thick paleosol (P17) situated between S14 and S15, near Bassi locality.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s009.tif (3.8MB, tif)
    S10 Fig. Occlusal view of RRA-123, left dp 4 -m1 of Paraulacodus indicus from Rashole.

    Thryonomyid dental terminology and measurements used for RRA-123 lower dentition.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s010.tif (225.4KB, tif)
    S11 Fig. Observed magnetic polarity stratigraphy (MPTS) is plotted against the standard geomagnetic polarity timescale (GPTS; Ogg, 2020) to assess sediment accumulation rates (SAR) for Options 1 & 3.

    (TIF)

    pone.0343500.s011.tif (404KB, tif)
    S1 Table. Palemagnetic data sampling information.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0343500.s012.xlsx (11KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Least Square data of each sample and VGP.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0343500.s013.xlsx (39KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Site Mean and VGP.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0343500.s014.xlsx (13.5KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. Comparative measurements of Megacricetodon and Democricetodon relative to Dehari cricetid.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0343500.s015.xlsx (14KB, xlsx)
    S5 Table. Sediment accumulation rate of three possible scenarios and Extrapolated Age.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0343500.s016.xlsx (12KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-57067.pdf

    pone.0343500.s017.pdf (5.1MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0343500.s019.docx (33.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES