This is an interesting study, providing a method to investigate self-recognition in a wild context. The controls are well considered and provide a good foundation for the mark testing procedure except that there should have also been a condition in front of the mirror without marking. This would permit the baboons to potentially become familiar with their reflection. If a species does not show the transition from other-directed to self-directed behaviour first, there is really little point in carrying out the mark test. With so few responses to the laser mark when not visible and in the mirror condition, planned statistical analyses were not possible. Some ‘qualitative observations’ are included which are interesting; however, I feel they should be framed more as anecdotal. As the authors say, they were not systematically recorded and we therefore do not know frequencies, durations, etc. I think a less anthropomorphic term should be used for the ‘come hither’ face.
Line 21 – wording is odd and could be clearer
Line 30 – should run on from above in same para
L35 – check wording
L36 – can’t really say most researchers without citing them, and I’m not sure they would agree, neither is it necessarily the case that social self-awareness would be very widely distributed
L66 too broad to say the great apes – this is contentious, what about bonobos? For gorillas, there has been much more work since Suarez and Gallup which is cited (see Murray, Anderson & Gallup, 2022 for review, and also Murray, 2020).
L72 – this list could be examples but is not exhaustive – e.g. ants
L89 run on from para above
Introduction as a whole is clear but, when talking about different levels of self-awareness, could include some discussion of the gradualist framework of levels suggested by several authors in this area (de Waal et al, 2005; Murray et al, 2020; Murray, 2020), particularly as baboons could potentially show similar (different) reactions to reflections as those of capuchins and spider monkeys which don’t show SR but don’t respond socially either.
L72 could state here how responses were recorded – live presumably?
L186 – how many times would one individual have experienced this?
L201 – while I understand that the laser mark was moved to avoid the potential of skin injury, this motion nevertheless would provide a considerable cue for the animal’s attention – although the authors state that this was also to increase its salience, it also makes the procedure less comparable with standard mark testing with a stationary mark and this should be acknowledged. Are there not lasers that are guaranteed not to harm skin?
L213 it would still be interesting to know how much the subjects mouthed/licked the visible marks.
L203 mentions a single coder but then the term ‘coders’ is used later (L219). Good to see reliability check.
L239 intra
L248 – this could be clearer to me
L267 – check wording here
L344 see comments in summary re qualitative observations
L357 – but add ‘but not their own reflection’ – this can be likened to other findings showing a similar understanding of environment (e.g. Murray, 2020).
L371 I would just stick to captive settings as contrived seems less appropriate
L388 OK, so you have mentioned the strange effect in capuchins here – it should be cited in the introduction and the same finding in spider monkeys also cited
L391 the point is not clear here; affiliative gestures to the mirror would likely be classed as social responses
L409 check wording
L414 you might include something here on baboons’ colour vision
L422 might the females have infants with them and this would seem riskier?

Thank you for addressing my concerns; I feel this is now a stronger and clearer manuscript.
l.26 water is reflective
l.142 - I realise that mirror exposure was given but you need data from this to compare as a baseline of interest in the mirror when not marked.
I'd still prefer an alternative to the 'come hither' face - it may be used in baboon facial expression literature but it doesn't appear in the self-awareness literature.