Page 3 - line 34: please check the sentence "extant member of Alligatoridae and Caimaninae" because Alligatoridae includes Caimaninae and therefore the authors do not need to explicitly indicate the latter. Was it " "extant member of Alligatorinae and Caimaninae"?

Even if the authors explicitly state that the analyses are based on "two different sets of phylogenies" (section 3.2) and then congruently stick to them, I think that for the sake of completeness it would better to at least mention that there are recent alternative phylogenies that, among other things, place Tomistoma along with Gavialis (see Lee and Yates, 2018 - Proc Biol Sci; Rio and Mannion, 2021 -PeerJ). Since this arrangement, that reconciles the genetic evidence and the morphological / palaeontological signal, will likely become a standard in the near future, it would be interesting to know how much it changes the results and the conclusions of this study. A single sentence in the Results and in the Discussion would help the manuscript to be updated in the next years.

I am a bit confused by the fact that the focus of the study is on organisms occupying landmasses (page 4 lines 9-10) but then dyrosaurids (largely marine) are included in the results and discussion. Maybe an additional sentence justifying the things on page 4 could help the reader.

I think that "where" should start with a lower case letter on page 6 line 3 and page 7 line 42 (right after the formulae)

The references require some further work because there are titles with all the words starting with capital letters (ref 5, 9, 12), or with all the words in capital letters (ref 27), or author list devoid of all the authors after the first (ref. 19). Note also that most of the references have genera and species names not in italics (es. ref 16, 20, 28, 29, 31 ...) and some references have the journal titles abbreviated but others not.(moreover, please note that in the text there are several broken links to the references)

Table 1: Quaternary is misspelled