This was a nice paper on how you can use the newer technologies of VR and AR to visualize morphology. The paper was a bit cumbersome to read at times because of the amount of jargon in the scripts, languages, and hardware. There was a nice set of case studies in the discussion.

Lines 118 - 123: The pricing isn't clear to me.

I would have liked to see a clear recommended set up at a few price points that aren't split out into the various components. For someone who is new to VR/AR etc, the methods may not be as clear given the amount of information that is provided. Table 1 was clear.

Line 193: The . is included in the URL so it doesn't load as intended
Line 194: The . is included in the URL so it doesn't load as intended
Line 199: The . is included in the URL so it doesn't load as intended - although this movie is excellent and really showed how this technology can visualize and communicate the morphology

Line 228 I would have liked to see a paragraph introducing the reader to the various case studies.

Lines 449 - 456 This paragraph may be true but at the end of a case study seems like an odd spot for them. I would presume that the technology barrier to visualizing 3D models is much more likely why these are not used widely. Most biology faculty do not have access to VR and AR equipment. This may want to be moved to the closing remarks at the very end.

In the conclusion, I think an area that isn't mentioned that could also benefit from VR and AR is using data from museum collections for animals other than dinosaurs.

I think that getting more biologists and scientists to think about using VR and AR in teaching and in research would be excellent and this paper provides guidance for faculty who want to move in that direction.