Updated List of Bryophytes from Cape Verde Archipelago

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper summarizes all the data on the bryoflora of the  Cape Verde archipelago and is based manly on published resulst. The novelty lies in generalizing previously published data, correcting the nomenclature and clarifying the distribution of species across the islands.The results state that "In this study, 34 new taxes (13 liverworths and 21 mosses) are added to the Cape Verde bryophyte list”, however, I have not found anywhere what these species are. Do authors meant just species from recent publications?

 The table (Apendix1) is very clunky with several unnecessary columns, for example it is no need in the endemism column. All endems are listed in section 3.4, while the distribution of endems, their frequency of occurrence, and vital condition are not discussed. It is clearly unnecessary to cite families against each taxon. But it would be important to somehow indicate the species that are listed for the first time for different islands. It wo I have not found such information.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your observations. Indeed, the 34 new species refer to recent references following the publication of Patiño & González-Mancebo, 2005. We agree on the importance of mentioning these new species in the text, hence they are now specified in Section 3.1.

We have chosen to retain the "Endemism" column in Appendix 1 to aid readers' interpretation. Additionally, in the second paragraph of the discussion, we have elaborated on the occurrence of endemic species per island. Furthermore, we have included additional information in Section 3.4.

Thank you once again.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of

Updated List of Bryophytes from Cape Verde Archipelago 2

Manuela Sim-Sim 1,2, *, †, Anabela Martins 2, † and Cesár Augusto Garcia 2

The paper summarize the data on bryophyte diversity in the Cape Verde Archipelago. The previous list of species for this territory by Patiño & González-Mancebo appeared about twenty years ago and its update in obviously reasonable. The new list increases the number of species by 20%.

 I noticed only a three errors to improve:

1) Plasteurhynchium referred to Lembophyllaceae instead of Brachytheciaceae (cf. Hodgetts et al., 2020).

2) Didymodon insulanus and hastatus are listed not in alphabetical order

3) Two figures are named as Figure 2.

 I strongly recommend change the format of synonyms, giving them in alphabetical order,

e.g. Fissidens bocarangensis P. de la Varde  = Fissidens flaccidus

as under the accepted names (as it is now) they are very difficult to find.

 Also I think that the discussion on the proportion of acrocarpous and pleurocarpous mosses is too much inflated. No need to repeat it several times and provide long lists of numbers in the section 3.5. The illustration in Figure 2 is sufficient, and I also recommend combine two figures (both titles as Figure 2), where these bars may show proportions of four growth forms in one column for each island.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for bringing the reported errors to our attention. We have rectified all of them. Your suggestions are also greatly appreciated. We've adjusted the format of the synonym list as per your instructions. Furthermore, we've reviewed the caption of Figure 3; however, we feel it's clearer to maintain Figures 2 and 3 as separate entities. While Section 3.5 may seem lengthy, we consider it to be informative and believe it adds value to our work.

Thank you once again.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Through the examination of herbarium collections and newly collected specimens, this research aim to provide an updated list of bryophytes for Cape Verde Archipelago. The findings and data provided by the study are crucial for the in situ conservation of bryophytes in the region. While I believe this kind of study is of broad interest, I would like the authors to address the following questions.

Firstly, regarding the synonymous list of species, I don’t think it is necessary to list the original variant or basionym for a species. Instead, I believe it is important for a checklist to include the literature where the species was first treated as synonymous. 

Additionally, the study has already compared species richness among different islands, but analyzing the differences in species composition between islands could yield more intriguing results. Comparing this information with the growth forms between islands could also reveal how different environments impact species richness and composition.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, the objective of this study is to update the list of bryophytes found in Cape Verde. This serves as a foundation for future analyses of species composition differences between islands. However, we recognize the need for further fieldwork to ensure greater result accuracy. While we have adjusted the presentation of the synonym list, we believe it's crucial to maintain a record of the original variant or basionym for Cape Verdean species, given the limited number of works with specific publications for the region.

Thank you once again.

Best regards,