New Molecular-Based Phylogeny of Mussel-Associated Mites Reveals a New Subgenus and Three New Species Representing an Example of a Host-Driven Radiation in Indochina and Confirms the Concept of Division of the Genus Unionicola Haldeman, 1842 (Acari: Unionicolidae) into Numerous Subgenera

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is very well prepared manuscript. The authors described a new subgenus and three new species of parasitic water mites in the genus Unionicola (Acari: ) from Myanmar. The new species are well defined and figures are of a good quality.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for appreciation of our work,  your time and attention devoted to our manuscript. 

Please see the attachment for more detailed response to your review. 

Kind regards, Yulia Chapurina

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This MS deals with several big issues regarding taxonomy, morphology, distribution and systematization of an interesting group of water mites that are quite hard to gather in high numbers such as this. The authors here have done a MASSIVE job,   so I have nothing to add except minor details, and only one big one: to broaden the title so it can reflect all the work you actually have done.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the appreciation of our work, valuable comments, your time and attention devoted to our manuscript!

Please see the attfchment for the point-by-point response to your vomments.

Kind regards, Yulia Chapurina

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very interesting and excellent work but needs some additional work to get it published.

I will comment on the different sections of the manuscript.

1.- The Introduction is very clear and adequate. An excellent summary of the parasitism in Unionicola.

2.- Material and Methods.

It is a pity that specimens used for DNA extraction were destroyed after digestion. There is ample evidence that non-destructive DNA extraction is compatible with saving a voucher for morphological description [e.g. Pešić VL, Valdecasas A, Garcia-Jimenez R. Simultaneous evidence for a new species of Torrenticola Piersig, 1896 (Acari, Hydrachnidia) from Montenegro. Zootaxa. 2012 Oct 12;3515(1):38-50.]

There are some contradictory data on the number of sequences used for phylogenetic analysis:

155- 156: For phylogenetic analyses, we used 96 in-group COI + 28S haplotype sequences. Two sequences of Neumania spp. (Unionicolidae; GenBank acc. no. MN359295 for Neumania sp. and MK889600 for Neumania verrucosa) were used as an outgroup.

Comment: These numbers give 98 sequences. Supplement file list 110 sequences. And in lines 178 – 179 the authors say: The molecular diagnoses were based on 281 COI and 61 28S Unionicola sequences (Supplementary Dataset S1). Please, clarify!

It is very important that the authors indicate the number of base pairs analyzed for the COI and 28S genes.

3.- Results

I think that paragraph beginning with “Available data on…” line 189 belongs to the discussion.

The morphological descriptions are very professional. Congratulations!

The multivariate analysis is based on 14 specimens and 22 characters. For this number of characters, it would be more robust to employ 30 or more specimens. In any case, I think it necessary to include an excel file with the morphological data used by the authors to carry the multivariate analysis as a supplement file.

The taxonomic key uses the term ‘average’ in a colloquial way. Average in science (statistics) could be the mean, the mode, or the media. Please clarify.

4.- Discussion

The more problematic point in the discussion is the resurrection of subgenera in Unionicola. They criticize the ‘administrative’ decision of Smit erasing all subgenera. I agree completely with the authors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the good words about our work, your attention, time devoted to our manuscript and valuable comments and recommendations!

 Please see the attachment with more detailed response to the review.

Kind regards, Yulia Chapurina

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is well written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. However, several statements will require minor justification in order to help readers well understand the points. My comments are directly given in the MS (diversity-1923474-peer-review-v1).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the good words about our work, your attention, time devoted to our manuscript and valuable comments to the design of the manuscript!

 Please see the attachment with more detailed response to the review.

Kind regards, Yulia Chapurina

Author Response File: Author Response.docx