Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Fanworms: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Annelid Diversity: Historical Overview and Future Perspectives
Review
Peer-Review Record

On the Diversity of Phyllodocida (Annelida: Errantia), with a Focus on Glyceridae, Goniadidae, Nephtyidae, Polynoidae, Sphaerodoridae, Syllidae, and the Holoplanktonic Families

Diversity 2021, 13(3), 131; https://doi.org/10.3390/d13030131
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Diversity 2021, 13(3), 131; https://doi.org/10.3390/d13030131
Received: 5 February 2021 / Revised: 5 March 2021 / Accepted: 8 March 2021 / Published: 17 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systematics and Diversity of Annelids)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper summarizes the current state of research on the taxonomy, phylogeny and ecology of Phyllodocida in broad terms, and such a review is very useful for the future direction of research. This paper is very well written and the reviewer, myself, is looking forward to its publication.

No major problems have been found throughout, but some minor issues have been written directly into the PDF file for references in the revision. A particular problem that needs correcting is that the order of the figures is not in the order in which they are mentioned in the text. This is a very stressful part of reading the paper, and I would like to request that it be corrected.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This paper summarizes the current state of research on the taxonomy, phylogeny and ecology of Phyllodocida in broad terms, and such a review is very useful for the future direction of research. This paper is very well written and the reviewer, myself, is looking forward to its publication.

No major problems have been found throughout, but some minor issues have been written directly into the PDF file for references in the revision.

Issues in the PDF have been corrected as follows (all minor spelling remarks have been corrected but not detailed here):

1.- by Dales [1],

Done (see answers to reviewer 2)

2.- It may be helpful for readers who are not familiar with this group to note where this structure is located.

We have added “(i.e., protrusible dorsolateral walls of the foregut)”

3.- “–”

The reviewer recommended to change “-“ by “–“ along the manuscript. However, we have used the Endnote style for the journal and the hyphenation is that included in the style. Thus, we have not changed this along the manuscript..

4.- Need a line of space before here?

All style remarks have been already implemented by the journal editors, we will not detail them from here on.

5.- Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS)

We have added “(OBIS)”, and replaced Biogeographic by Biodiversity, which now is the correct name.

6.- I think it is confusing to refer this to "intertidal" as it includes the subtidal zone shallower than 10 m. It would be less confusing to reword it with a more appropriate term, e.g. costal or nearshore.

We have replaced “intertidal” by “intertidal and shallow subtidal”, which more precisely defines the section of the bathymetric profile we are referring to.

7.- The link is not working properly.

In the downloaded Word file it works fine.

8.- Need to capitalise the first letter of “dataset”?

We have replaced “Dataset” by “dataset”.

9.- CL-MTVPP?

This is the name of the datafile, we have corrected it to “CL-MTVPP”

10.- The link is not working properly.

It works in the downloaded Word file. Probably there may be some problems with hyphenation in the PDF. It will be better to include all the link in the same line.

11.- described species names. Please note that the species names are accepted, not the species itself.

We have included “names”. We have also included names in all other appropriate sentences through the manuscript (including figure legends)

12.- This wording is likely to confuse the reader. I recommend to reword this such as "all species names including currently unaccepted species names"

We agree and this has been modified.

13.- Move to the end of this caption.

Done.

14.- raw species richness data

We think it is not necessary to include data here, as we refer to what the index is indicating.

15.- ES50

We have replaced “expected number of species” by “ES50”.

16.- I didn't understand what you are referring to, so it would be better to write more specifically.

We have reworded “as well as across taxa” as “as well as in a variety of other taxonomic groups

”.

17.- The results (or analyses) showed

We have replaced “The order showed” by “Our results showed”.

18.- decreased?

No, it is increased, as the sampling effort in shallower waters is much higher. However, it is not necessary to indicate “increased” here, so we deleted this word.

19.- 6b?, 6c?

Yes. We have changed this.

20.- Delete “in”

We have not deleted “in” but added Pernet before, as recommended by Reviewer 2.

21.- 1,215

We have replaced 1,215

22.- Please indicate the number in the pie chart.

Done.

23.-10b?

Yes. We have changed this.

24.- Please add an explanation to the horizontal axis of the figure.

The explanations have been added to Figure 8a. In Figure 8c it was already indicated, but on the top of the graph. We have moved it below the axis for clarity.

25.- Please indicate the number in the figure (8b, 9a, 9b).

Done. To be consistent, we have also added the numbers in Figure 10 a-c.s

26.- From the figure the percentage appear to be much higher.

The percentages are correct. However, we realized that the following sentences are not clearly explained. Thus, we have replaced “When analyzing the information at the species level” by “When comparing the total number of barcoded species (527) among these families”, as we are talking in these cases about species and not about BINs.

27.- There is a great divergence between the order of the figures and the order in which they are referred to in the text, which I feel is very awkward and unfriendly to the reader. The order of the figures should be changed to the order in which they are mentioned in the text.

Figure 3c has been moved and placed as Figure 11a. Figure 11 is now Figure 11b.

28.- The figure only shows the number of BINs, so it would be less confusing if the number of BINs is shown together with the number of species. It is difficult to understand the meaning of the statement here and the calculation of the numerical values (how the percentages were calculated?).

This is our mistake. The number and percentage corresponds to BINs. However, each type of BIN corresponds to a certain number of species. Therefore we have rewritten the paragraph as: “As for the number of BINs (Figure 11b), from a total of 1,215, 34% (corresponding to 220 species) showed no apparent taxonomic conflict (i.e., concordant), while 6.7% (81 species) showed taxonomic conflicts (i.e., discordant). Moreover, although 44.1% of the records (i.e., 500) were singletons (i.e., having just a single barcode), a significative number of them were identified only at the genus/family level or had tag codes. Thus, our analysis proved that there were only 257 species properly identified at the species level and having a single available sequence, while 35 “species” (15.2% of the BINs) were possible cryptic complexes.”

29.- Number of Barcode Index Number (BIN) with each congruency grade.

“Barcode Index Number (BIN) congruency grades” has been replaced by “Number of Barcode Index Numbers (BINs) according to congruency grades”.

30.- 10.5% and 11.2%, respectively; Figure 10a

Figure 10a has been added.

31.- (Figure 11)

(Figure 11b) has been added.

32.- Cumulative curve of newly described species through time  (a, c) and number of new species described per year in Glyceriformia (b, d): (a, b) Glyceridae, (c, d) Goniadidae.

The legend has been rewritten accordingly.

33.- The legend of Figure 13 has been rewritten according to reviewer.

34.- (jaws of fossil annelids)

Added.

35.- The legend of Figure 14 has been rewritten according to the style suggested by the reviewer for Figure 13, and italics have been removed from “cf”.

36.- It would be better to write more specifically.

“benthic counterparts” has been replaced by “benthic relatives”

37.- Which genus?

“A recently described genus” has been replaced by “The recently described genus Ctenophoricola San Martín, Álvarez-Campos et al. 2021”

38.- Lopadorrhynchidae is not tribe name.

We have replaced Lopadorrhynchidae by “members of this group".

39.- Isn't this the name of a suborder?

Yes, but this author used it as Tribe name, which is currently not accepted. We have included this as a historical reference on the phylogenetic classification of this group.

40.- Which is the taxonomic rank of this taxon?

Is an Order, currently not accepted.

41.- Is this a family name? very confusing.

Yes, is was a family name, but currently it is not accepted. We have included this as a historical reference on the phylogenetic classification of this group.

42.- 17c, d? 17a,b?

The order of the genus was not correct. We have written first Aglaophamus and then Nephtys so that now coincide with the figure.

43.- Molecular phylogenetic analyses?

Yes. We have deleted “and”.

44.- phylogenetic relationships within the family?

We have replaced “structure of the family” by “phylogenetic relationships within the family”.

45.- I think It would be better to include the following references in citation.

Olive, P.J.W., Garwood, P.R., Bentley, M.G. et al. Reproductive success, relative abundance and population structure of two species of Nephtys in an estuarine beach. Mar. Biol. 63, 189–196 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00406827

Done.

46.- Please be specific about the year up to which the total number is calculated.

We have replaced “1850’s” by “1850”.

47.- subfamilies?

We have replaced “families” by “subfamilies”.

48.- Please amend "spe-cies" to "species" in the caption.

"spe-cies" has been preplaced by "species"

49.- It would be better to indicate which DNA regions were used for the phylogenetic analysis.

To be consistent with the other sections of the manuscript, instead of indicating here the DNA regions, we used a generic form, and we replaced the sentence “Recent phylogenetic analyses assessing the monophyly of Sphaerodoridae based on DNA sequences” by Recent molecular phylogenetic analyses assessing the monophyly of Sphaerodoridae”.

50.- revision?

“re-structuring” has been replaced by “revision”.

51.- 200–4000?

Done.

51.- provide author name

Done.

52.- Is this family name?

Yes, is was a family name, but currently it is not accepted. We have included this as a historical reference on the phylogenetic classification of this group.

53.- The figure shows Exogoninae.

The reference to the figure has been deleted.

54.- terminal taxa

“terminals” has been replaced by “terminal taxa”.

55.- What are clade A and B?

We have rewritten the sentence “although subdivided in two different lineages (i.e., the ribbon-clade or clade A and the clade B, which included Syllis  as paraphyletic genus)” as ” although subdivided in two different lineages: the ´ribbon-clade´ (clade A) and clade B (including Syllis as paraphyletic genus)”.

56.- Please use en dash throughout the references.

To do this, I have to modify the EndNote style I downloaded from your website. Should I do this?

 

A particular problem that needs correcting is that the order of the figures is not in the order in which they are mentioned in the text. This is a very stressful part of reading the paper, and I would like to request that it be corrected.

The order of figures has been checked and improved when appropriate. Moreover, since the manuscript was submitted, we have obtained some pictures of living specimens of planktonic polychaetes, and we have considered that, due to its quality and rarity, merited to be included in the manuscript. Therefore, we have modified the Figure 15 accordingly and, consequently, also the references to this figure in the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a nice manuscript, the authors have skillfully synthesized the information available on most Phyllodocida. I am convinced that it will be a handy reference for many annelid researchers in the future. I especially appreciate the focus on the barcode sequences and the analyses of their quality (or lack thereof). I definitely recommend it for publication after some minor revision.

One issue I found in the manuscript is in the initial part addressing the barcode sequence data and the mention of non-indigenous species. One major issue in annelid taxonomy is the use of “cosmopolitan” species names, and/or misidentification due to lack of taxonomic expertise. A true cosmopolitan distribution or anthropogenic introduction is rather the exception than the norm for polychaetes and I would consider such records to be suspicious/faulty until proven otherwise (see Hutchings and Kupriyanova 2018, “Cosmopolitan polychaetes…”).  

This is most definitely clear to the authors and also addressed accordingly in parts of the manuscript. (For instance, see pg. 12, ln. 333-344). However, Table 1 summarizing non-native species suggests that the species identification is correct. I would suggest the authors address this problem earlier in the text. Furthermore, it would be a very helpful and informative parameter to include whether or not the available barcode sequence stems from (or near) the type locality. The only way to tackle the issue of problematic taxonomy of DNA barcodes is to have well-curated and annotated databases — the authors do a great job in showing this —. In an ideal scenario, we would have a barcode sequence attached to the holotype of a species. Or at least to an individual from near the type locality, with a deposited voucher specimen. This is of course still not foolproof, e.g. in cases of true sympatric cryptic speciation. However, that would be the first thing we check when looking at a barcode sequence:

For instance, let's look at the first entry in table 1:
Bhawania goodei - Type locality is Bermuda(?). How likely is the occurrence of that species also in the Meditteranean? Can that Mediterranean report really be trusted? Does it come from a source with reliable expertise on Chrysopetalids? — I doubt it. Nevertheless, that is not the point. Where does the barcode sequence come from? USA. Great, but is it somewhere in the US that we could consider close to Bermuda? Or is it a pacific record? 

What I am trying to get at is, if this table also included the type locality information and the information on whether or not a sequence from that type locality is available, that would be a fantastic resource for anyone trying to resolve the taxonomy of these potentially (probably not) introduced species… I highly recommend the authors include this data in the table. 

Also, the percentage of barcodes that are actually from type material, from near type localities etc. would be very interesting statistics to see.

All minor issues listed below are mostly editorial. Their locations specified by page number, line number as on the pdf supplied to me. Most of these are easily corrected, and some are matters of opinion, and may not need to be changed at all:

  1. page 1, line 26: “Phyllodocida are a clade….”. *is a clade
  2. 1, 27: “(if resent)” *present?
  3. 1, 32: Phyllodocidans, Do not use the adjectival form as a noun! Use the formal taxon name or a proper noun. ‘Phyllodocidan’ for instance should only be used in the following way e.g ‘phyllodocidan proboscis", not as a noun by itself. Many people use adjectives as nouns, but it is grammatically incorrect and should be avoided.. Please check the rest of the ms. Keywords also include “phyllodocidan”
  4. 1, 42: 10% of the *knowN species
  5. 2, 28: I find the citation style a bit irritating. Especially in such a review paper, where there is an immense amount of citations, numbers alone are not very informative. There is of course nothing the authors can do about this. However, in cases like this, where the references are directly part of the sentence I recommend the authors at least write the author’s name: “as monotypic by Dales [1]” instead of “as monotypic by [1]”. Please check the entire ms. 
  6. 2, 67: Can you provide a reference here? What phyllodocidan (adj.) taxon was revised using µCT/CLSM data?
  7. 3, 110: don’t use the definitive article “the” before taxon names. “the Nephtyidae, the Polynoidae,...” etc. 
  8. 13, 334-344. Awkward phrasing and complicated sentences. Rephrase. For example: “An example of how complex can the situation be..” *the situation can be?, “as the species do not occurs in USA” *does not occur?
  9. 18, 478: *uploaded to BOLD.
  10. 19, 525: The subheading "3.2. Selected families" is not fitting for what follows, as the subheaders are not family ranked. How about selected taxa?
  11. 19, 534: *Morphology based…
  12. 19, 546: delete “state-of-art”, does not fit here. The correct term would be state-of-the-art and it is used when referring to most up-to-date, modern techniques etc. 
  13. 21, 596: “pretended ‘identical morphospecies’? Awkward, I do not understand what this means. Rephrase
  14. 22, 621: I do not get the relevance of the last paragraph on deep-sea conservation, waste, ‘friendly floatees’ etc. for Glyceriformia. IMHO, It feels a little out of place and can be discarded.
  15. 22, 626: “it has popularly thought”? Something is off with this sentence.
  16. 23, 650: again drop the definitive article “the” before taxon names. ‘the Phyllodocida’ etc…
  17. 23, 657: add author name before [195]
  18. 24, 667-669: “There is no real evidence supporting the (sic) holoplanktonic taxa as being evolved from benthic ancestors, …” This sentence is very strange. It is grammatically off and from what I understand also not really correct. Rephrase to make your argument more clear. For many of these holopelagic taxa we have no idea on their phylogenetic placement. For the ones we know, they are nested well-within benthic clades. In fact, most Phyllodocida are benthic. So, wouldn’t that make holopelagic taxa secondarily adapted to a free swimming lifestyle? Nevertheless, this all remains speculative unless there is a well-supported phylogeny.
  19. 24, 681: ...*Alciopini. Among Iospilidae, …
  20. 25, 706: Alciopini *has always been considered
  21. 25, 719: … Alciopini *stand out by…
  22. 25, 724 and 726: remove “the” before Phyllodocida… and check rest of the text! In English one would avoid using the definitive article when make generalized statements. This not the case in German for example. 
  23. 27, 830…: A few important references on the phylogenetic placement of Typhloscolecidae are missing. See: Struck, T.H., Halanych, K.M. 2010. Origins of holopelagic Typhloscolecidae and Lopadorhynchidae within Phyllodocidae (Phyllodocida, Annelida). Zoologica Scripta 39: 269-275. And the response to that by Nygren and Pleijel: Nygren, A., Pleijel, F. 2011. Chimaeras and the origins of the holopelagic annelids Typhloscolecidae and Lopadorhynchidae: a reply to Struck & Halanych (2010). Zoologica Scripta 40: 112-114
  24. 36, 1141: Peinaleopolynoe *orphanae
  25. 40, 1305: “Nowadays”, Awkward, can be deleted. 
  26. 43, 1365: *of complete mitochondrial genomes? 
  27. 46, 1483: *where 
  28. 46, 1489: *cryptic species-complexes

Author Response

This is a nice manuscript, the authors have skillfully synthesized the information available on most Phyllodocida. I am convinced that it will be a handy reference for many annelid researchers in the future. I especially appreciate the focus on the barcode sequences and the analyses of their quality (or lack thereof). I definitely recommend it for publication after some minor revision.

One issue I found in the manuscript is in the initial part addressing the barcode sequence data and the mention of non-indigenous species. One major issue in annelid taxonomy is the use of “cosmopolitan” species names, and/or misidentification due to lack of taxonomic expertise. A true cosmopolitan distribution or anthropogenic introduction is rather the exception than the norm for polychaetes and I would consider such records to be suspicious/faulty until proven otherwise (see Hutchings and Kupriyanova 2018, “Cosmopolitan polychaetes…”).  

This is most definitely clear to the authors and also addressed accordingly in parts of the manuscript. (For instance, see pg. 12, ln. 333-344). However, Table 1 summarizing non-native species suggests that the species identification is correct. I would suggest the authors address this problem earlier in the text. Furthermore, it would be a very helpful and informative parameter to include whether or not the available barcode sequence stems from (or near) the type locality. The only way to tackle the issue of problematic taxonomy of DNA barcodes is to have well-curated and annotated databases — the authors do a great job in showing this —. In an ideal scenario, we would have a barcode sequence attached to the holotype of a species. Or at least to an individual from near the type locality, with a deposited voucher specimen. This is of course still not foolproof, e.g. in cases of true sympatric cryptic speciation. However, that would be the first thing we check when looking at a barcode sequence:

For instance, let's look at the first entry in table 1:
Bhawania goodei - Type locality is Bermuda(?). How likely is the occurrence of that species also in the Meditteranean? Can that Mediterranean report really be trusted? Does it come from a source with reliable expertise on Chrysopetalids? — I doubt it. Nevertheless, that is not the point. Where does the barcode sequence come from? USA. Great, but is it somewhere in the US that we could consider close to Bermuda? Or is it a pacific record? 

What I am trying to get at is, if this table also included the type locality information and the information on whether or not a sequence from that type locality is available, that would be a fantastic resource for anyone trying to resolve the taxonomy of these potentially (probably not) introduced species… I highly recommend the authors include this data in the table. 

Also, the percentage of barcodes that are actually from type material, from near type localities etc. would be very interesting statistics to see.

We have corrected Table 1 including type localities and, as a result it has been necessary to include some additional changes. Two “alien” species (Pisione guanche and Podarkeopsis capensis) where originally included as "barcoded in the reported invaded area" (BNN), but are in fact barcoded either very close to the type locality or in a very different/distant location from the invaded area. (i.e., the Canary islands and north of Spain, respectively). Accordingly, we have removed the original lines 331 and 332 in page 12, as it is going to be repeated again in page 18.We have removed "one pisionid" and "one hesionid" and replaced "only four" by "only two" in page 18. We have transferred the data in BNN on these two species and placed them in BOA in Table1.

 

All minor issues listed below are mostly editorial. Their locations specified by page number, line number as on the pdf supplied to me. Most of these are easily corrected, and some are matters of opinion, and may not need to be changed at all:

  1. page 1, line 26: “Phyllodocida are a clade….”. *is a clade

Corrected to “Phyllodocida is a clade”

  1. 1, 27: “(if resent)” *present?

Corrected to “if present”

  1. 1, 32: Phyllodocidans, Do not use the adjectival form as a noun! Use the formal taxon name or a proper noun. ‘Phyllodocidan’ for instance should only be used in the following way e.g ‘phyllodocidan proboscis", not as a noun by itself. Many people use adjectives as nouns, but it is grammatically incorrect and should be avoided.. Please check the rest of the ms. Keywords also include “phyllodocidan”

“Phyllodocidans are” has been replaced by “Species of Phyllodocida are” in the abstract. “Phyllodocidans” has been deleted form keywords. No other use of “phyllodocidans” has been found in the other sections of the manuscript.

  1. 1, 42: 10% of the *knowN species

Corrected to “known”

  1. 2, 28: I find the citation style a bit irritating. Especially in such a review paper, where there is an immense amount of citations, numbers alone are not very informative. There is of course nothing the authors can do about this. However, in cases like this, where the references are directly part of the sentence I recommend the authors at least write the author’s name: “as monotypic by Dales [1]” instead of “as monotypic by [1]”. Please check the entire ms. 

The citation style has been corrected as indicated by the reviewer along the whole manuscript.

  1. 2, 67: Can you provide a reference here? What phyllodocidan (adj.) taxon was revised using µCT/CLSM data?

We have added references on Syllis gracilis by Parapar et al. (2019) and on Chrisopelaids by Watson & Faulwetter (2017).

  1. 3, 110: don’t use the definitive article “the” before taxon names. “the Nephtyidae, the Polynoidae,...” etc. 

We have corrected the use of “the” before taxa throughout the manuscript.

  1. 13, 334-344. Awkward phrasing and complicated sentences. Rephrase. For example: “An example of how complex can the situation be..” *the situation can be?, “as the species do not occurs in USA” *does not occur?

“An example of how complex can the situation be occurs, for instance, ...” has been corrected to “An example of how complex the situation can be, for instance, occurs …”

“as the species do not occurs in USA” has been corrected to “as the species does not occur in USA”.

Moreover, we have added the following text, to better clarify the meaning of this paragraph: “In addition, reports of alien species in the past were often not accompanied by detailed species descriptions – let alone molecular data – and many of these reports were propagated through publications and databases of non-indigenous species. While some of these species can be clearly identified as non-native or even invasive (even pests), many of them may in fact be undescribed species native to the area that simply constitute misidentifications. A good practice for publishing future reports of non-native species occurrences should therefore be to provide detailed taxonomic descriptions and barcoding data if possible. In addition, the specimen in question should be deposited in a reference collection for future consultation. Once barcodes of the species from the type locality or native area become available, these “aliens” can be assessed much more accurately”.

  1. 18, 478: *uploaded to BOLD.

“upload to BOLD” has been corrected to “uploaded to BOLD”

  1. 19, 525: The subheading "3.2. Selected families" is not fitting for what follows, as the subheaders are not family ranked. How about selected taxa?

The subheading “Selected families” has been replaced by “Selected taxa”. Accordingly, the use of selected families across the manuscript has been checked and changed to Selected taxa when appropriate.

  1. 19, 534: *Morphology based…

“Morphological based” has been replaced by “Morphology based”

  1. 19, 546: delete “state-of-art”, does not fit here. The correct term would be state-of-the-art and it is used when referring to most up-to-date, modern techniques etc. 

“state-of-the-art is ” has been replaced by “are”.

  1. 21, 596: “pretended ‘identical morphospecies’? Awkward, I do not understand what this means. Rephrase

“pretended ‘identical morphospecies’” has been replaced by “species supposedly being morphologically “identical”

  1. 22, 621: I do not get the relevance of the last paragraph on deep-sea conservation, waste, ‘friendly floatees’ etc. for Glyceriformia. IMHO, It feels a little out of place and can be discarded.

The paragraph has been modified to highlight only the necessity of exploring deep-sea to gain knowledge on the diversity, biogeography and phylogeny of Glyceryformia. The sentences on raw materials, waste and Friendly Floateees have thus been deleted.

  1. 22, 626: “it has popularly thought”? Something is off with this sentence.

This has been deleted as a consequence of the previous modification.

  1. 23, 650: again drop the definitive article “the” before taxon names. ‘the Phyllodocida’ etc…

This has been done, as indicated in comment 3.

  1. 23, 657: add author name before [195]

Done as a consequence of comment 5

  1. 24, 667-669: “There is no real evidence supporting the (sic) holoplanktonic taxa as being evolved from benthic ancestors, …” This sentence is very strange. It is grammatically off and from what I understand also not really correct. Rephrase to make your argument more clear. For many of these holopelagic taxa we have no idea on their phylogenetic placement. For the ones we know, they are nested well-within benthic clades. In fact, most Phyllodocida are benthic. So, wouldn’t that make holopelagic taxa secondarily adapted to a free swimming lifestyle? Nevertheless, this all remains speculative unless there is a well-supported phylogeny.

We have rewritten the sentence and including a supporting reference: “All of them are assumed to be derived from benthic ancestors, even though there is no real evidence supporting such hypothesis Rouse and Fauchald (1997)”.

 

  1. 24, 681: ...*Alciopini. Among Iospilidae, …

“Alciopibi” has been corrected to “Alciopini”

  1. 25, 706: Alciopini *has always been considered

“Alciopini always been considered” has been corrected to “Alciopini has always been considered”

  1. 25, 719: … Alciopini *stand out by…

“Alciopini stands out” has been corrected to “Alciopini stand out”

  1. 25, 724 and 726: remove “the” before Phyllodocida… and check rest of the text! In English one would avoid using the definitive article when make generalized statements. This not the case in German for example. 

This has been done, as indicated in comment 3.

  1. 27, 830…: A few important references on the phylogenetic placement of Typhloscolecidae are missing. See: Struck, T.H., Halanych, K.M. 2010. Origins of holopelagic Typhloscolecidae and Lopadorhynchidae within Phyllodocidae (Phyllodocida, Annelida). Zoologica Scripta 39: 269-275. And the response to that by Nygren and Pleijel: Nygren, A., Pleijel, F. 2011. Chimaeras and the origins of the holopelagic annelids Typhloscolecidae and Lopadorhynchidae: a reply to Struck & Halanych (2010). Zoologica Scripta 40: 112-114

We have included the following sentence: “More recently, Typhloscolecidae were included within Phyllodocidae (Struck & Halanych, 2010), although this was later considered unacceptable owing to analytical problems (Nygren & Pleijel, 2011)”.

  1. 36, 1141: Peinaleopolynoe *orphanae

“orphanage” has been corrected to “orphanae”

  1. 40, 1305: “Nowadays”, Awkward, can be deleted.

Done 

  1. 43, 1365: *of complete mitochondrial genomes? 

“of its complete mitochondrial genome” has been corrected to “of complete mitochondrial genomes”

  1. 46, 1483: *where 

werehas been corrected to “where

  1. 46, 1489: *cryptic species-complexes

“critic species-complexes” has been corrected to “cryptic species-complexes”

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript ” On the diversity of Phyllodocida (Annelida: Errantia), with a focus on Glyceridae, Goniadidae, Nephtyidae, Polynoidae, Sphaerodoridae, Syllidae and the holoplanktonic families” by Martin et al. The manuscript is an impressive summary of what is known about the biology, distribution and diversity of Phyllodocida, with focus on a number of families. The author used data from several sources for analyzing description rates, distributions as well of publically available sequence data. I think the analyses are valuable and greatly improves the manuscript, and helps to identify variation of species richness, with an important discussion of sampling bias, historical development of the field, sequence availability etc.

 

I think the manuscript is a very impressive work summarizing a lot of information about the group, and I think the analyses further strengthen the paper. Not being an expert on Phyllodocida I don’t have any comment of the fact presented. I in fact only have one comment

 

There are differences in “species description graphs” e.g. fig. 12 vs. fig. 16 and 18. In the latter, and many more, only years with description of species are includes, and the intervals on the x-axis are not even. I suggest an overview of the graphs, and to make them more uniform. I would prefer if they all look more like fig. 2.

Author Response

There are differences in “species description graphs” e.g. fig. 12 vs. fig. 16 and 18. In the latter, and many more, only years with description of species are includes, and the intervals on the x-axis are not even. I suggest an overview of the graphs, and to make them more uniform. I would prefer if they all look more like fig. 2.

We have modified all graphics according to the style of Fig. 2.”

Reviewer 4 Report

This review manuscript provides useful information for diversity of Phyllodocida (Annelida: Errantia) and mostly well organized. In this review should be useful to the community. I consider it being suitable for publication in Diversity. Manuscript is well written, but some grammar errors have to be corrected before publication.

Author Response

This review manuscript provides useful information for diversity of Phyllodocida (Annelida: Errantia) and mostly well organized. In this review should be useful to the community. I consider it being suitable for publication in Diversity. Manuscript is well written, but some grammar errors have to be corrected before publication.

Grammar errors have been corrected all along the manuscript.

Back to TopTop