The authors have done a good work and improved significantly the manuscript in the revised version. Most of the issues raised for the original version were corrected/applied. However, I still recommend to add length-width diagrams for each tooth position, so that the specimens described are plotted and compared with other localities. The diagrams that the authors have added (Fig. 6) from the previous version are not informative. I suggest to include only well-dated localities with secure species identification (see for example datasets in Böhme et al., 2012 and Göhlich, 2020). Dental dimensions play an important role in the evolutionary history of deinotheres and contribute significantly for taxonomic determinations, as well as for biostratigraphic conclusions, and therefore this addition is deemed crucial. This is indeed important because some specimens here attributed to D. levius fit well also within the size variation known for D. giganteum. Accordingly, the single m2 attributed here to D. giganteum has similar dimensions to specimens of D. levius from Hinterauerbach in Germany (Gräf, 1957). All these affect of course the biostratigraphic range provided by the authors in Figure 9. Several other corrections and suggestions for improvement are noted in the attached pdf file.

I strongly doubt the co-existence of two or more species of deinothere in Europe at any one time. Some of the records published are based on misidentified deciduous teeth, or are based on a mis-understanding of the range of metric variation of the various species. All the sites that are supposed to have yielded two species have yielded only one or two teeth (and there are very few of these sites, in fact only one place in France which is doubtful) and the Deinotheriensande which yielded many specimens (but which is now known to span MN 4 - MN 11). Once a decent sample is found at a site, all the specimens belong to one species.

Also, the characters supposed to differentiate Prodeinotherium from Deinotherium seem to me not to be constant. I've seen a mandible in which the left side would be classified as a different genus from the right side.

Apart from these comments, the paper is interesting, but it needs alot of effort on the English before it is formally published.

The preprint of Gagliardi et al. is an interesting contribution on the deinotheriid remains (attributed to Prodeinotherium bavaricum, Deinotherium levius and D. giganteum) from several localities of Switzerland, ranging from the late early to the early late Miocene. The specimens are scientifically treated following the standard methodology and the manuscript is well-structured. However, I made several corrections and suggestions for improvement directly in the mansucript (attached pdf file). My major points are the following:

• The authors follow the 5 species concept of European deinotheres (Prodeinotherum cuvieri, P. bavaricum, Deinotherium levius, D. giganteum, D. proavum). However, when comparing their specimens with published ones, as well as in the discussion and in the list given in the Appendix, the authors do not revise accordingly the older taxonomical view(s), i.e. the 2 species concept (P. bavaricum-D. giganteum) usually adopted until recently or even until now. This leads to the mixing of the 2, 4 (without D. levius) and 5 species concept, particularly evident in Figure 8, but also in the text (e.g., co-occurrence of 3 deinothere species, or that D. giganteum survived until the end of the late Miocene).

• Prodeinotherium is not known from the late Miocene. Older publications, which note the presence of P. bavaricum during the Vallesian are mainly based on its occurrence in the Dinotheriensande (Eppelsheim Formation) of the Mainz Basin in Germany. This Fm was generally considered to be of Vallesian age, but see Böhme et al. (2012) and Pickford and Pourabrishami (2013).

• Because dental dimensions play an important role in the evolutionary history of deinotheres and contribute significantly for taxonomic determinations, as well as for biostratigraphic conclusions, I recommend the authors to add length-width diagrams for each tooth position, so that the specimens described are plotted and compared. I suggest to include only well-dated localities with secure species identification (see for example datasets in Böhme et al., 2012 and Göhlich, 2020) in order to avoid the mixing of the 2 species concept, which will result to wrong interpretations or complicate matters.

• I wonder if the stratigraphic positions of several specimens described is secure, as at least some of them concern old discoveries. To be more explicit, the correlation of the Bois de Raube specimen to the middle Miocene (MN6-7/8 in Table 5) and of the Charmoille specimens to the late Miocene (MN 9 in Table 4) is secure? For example, if I understand correctly, the Bois de Raube tooth was found in 1858 and I suppose without precise stratigraphic information. All the above correlations result (see also Fig. 8) that the D. giganteum-bearing Bois de Raube locality is older than the D. levius-bearing Charmoille locality.

• Deinotherium proavum was not present during the middle Miocene, while Pliocene occurrences of deinotheres are questioned (see Markov, 2008).

• I suggested several publications in the pdf that I find necessary to be included, e.g., Tobien (1988) for D. giganteum from Montredon (France).

• The correct spelling is “deinothere”, not “dinothere”.

• The English language should be improved.

To sum up, this is a nice contribution, but I recommend major revisions before publishing.