Needs a revision; see AE reportFirst of all, please accept our apologies for the delay with this review. You present a novel and very bold hypothesis about (one of) the causes of latitudinal diversity gradients, and you do so in a quite complete and thorough way. So analysing all aspects of it has required some time, which together with the change of recommender and one of the busiest periods of the last years has done the rest. We are very sorry for that.Briefly, the current version of your study is in great shape, but needs some final tweaking. Besides our own reading, two additional reviewers made an in-depth review of it, and they identify some key points that merit some revisions. Most of these revisions are of relatively minor importance, as they are directed to improve the clarity of the manuscript and, importantly, the presentation of your results and analyses. As stated above, you tackle a novel issue and you do it thoroughly, so it is not surprising that some bits remain obscure even though the main lines of your work are quite convincing (but see my cautionary note below). So please follow the advice made by the reviewers, and try to clarify and/or discuss the points they make in a way that (a) the reasons behind your methodological choices are clear for the readers; and (b) the uncertainty associated to your results and their and implications are communicated better.## We want to warmly thank the editors for all the work they have done on the manuscript. We realize our study is not an easy one to evaluate, as it includes different types of analyses (biogeography, diversification), with or without fossils and for three different groups, which additionally comes (sometimes) with contradictory results (e.g. those based on extant data vs. fossil data). Therefore we are very grateful for all the effort they put into it.Although this was not required, we have introduced some modifications in the text concerning the way our main hypotheses are presented; the AGE