The authors have satisfied most of my comments in this revision.

I only have some minor comments that should be addressed before publication,
1. The authors seem to have misunderstood my comments about the expression of venom
peptides in the venom bulb. They state in their response that they cut the bulb from the
proximal section of the gland and agree that some minor contaminations are possible.
While I agree with this statement, their response seems to have ignored the crux of my
earlier comment. The main point was that the venom duct actually extends for a distance
inside the venom bulb as clearly shown by the morphological analysis by Safavi-Hemami
et al, 2010, J. Prot. Res.

Therefore, even though the authors have cut the venom bulb from the duct (Figure 6), the portion
of the duct that extends into the bulb is unlikely to be removed unless they deliberately cut this
section, in which case, they must state this within the manuscript. If they haven't removed this
section of the duct, I suspect that their discovery of toxins might actually be from here and not
from the musculature of the venom bulb itself.

Alternatively, if the authors argue that the portion of the venom duct inside the venom bulb also
counts as a part of the venom bulb they must state this.

So in summary, the authors should at least discuss how they think the venom bulb expresses the
toxins they discovered within the main text of the article so as to provide the rest of the field a
testable hypothesis for publication.

2. The abstract and discussion sections should be revised to reflect changes made to the
results section with respect to classification of sequences (They state 9 novel
superfamilies in the results and 17 in the discussion and abstract)

I also noted that some minor grammatical and phrasing errors have crept into some of the revised
sections. I suggest that the authors perform a thorough check with a native English speaker
before publication.

I have listed some of the issues and inconsistencies I picked up below:

Line 44 - Abstract needs to be changed to reflect changes to the manuscript. The authors mention
183 novel conopeptides from 17 new superfamilies, but the revised manuscript describes 10
novel conopeptides in 9 new superfamilies.

Line 51 - The term 'toxicity' is misplaced here.

Line 68 - Remove 'the' before 'cone snails'. Also remove 'the' before 'piscivorous',
'molluscivorous', etc.

Line 75 - Needs rephrasing to avoid making it sound like the venom gland can be 'launched' from
the snail.

Line 78 - Remove 'them' before 'paralysis' and remove 'selectively' after 'paralysis'.

Line 115 - Claim needs a reference.

Line 143 - Needs rephrasing - grammar and language issues.

Line 207 - The word 'achieved' is misplaced here.

Line 221 - C. varius is a worm-hunter (Duda, Kohn and Palumbi, 2001).

Line 350 - The authors should remove the sentence saying that this study reports the highest
number of conotoxins so far. This is not correct as noted by Reviewer #1.

Line 380 - Needs to be updated to reflect changes in the results section.

Are the methods appropriate to the aims of the study, are they well described, and are
necessary controls included?

If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes.

Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data shown?

If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes.

Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s guidelines on
'http://www.gigasciencejournal.com/authors/instructions/minimum_standards_reporting'
minimum standards of reporting?

If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes.

Are you able to assess all statistics in the manuscript, including the appropriateness of
statistical tests used?

(If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.)
There are no statistics in the manuscript.

Quality of written English

Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published .

Declaration of competing interests

Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?

2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?

3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?

4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?

5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?

6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?

If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests'
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.

I have no competing interests.

I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.

I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal.

Authors' response to reviews: (http://www.gigasciencejournal.com/imedia/1426776608201054_comment.pdf)