Glyptothorax (Teleostei: Sisoridae) from the Middle East: An Integrated Molecular and Morphological Insight into Its Taxonomic Diversity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This MS is well-written and the taxonomic decisions of the authors seem to be correct.  I had an experience with Iranian Glyptothorax sent to me by colleagues, and I failed to properly identify the specimens using both recent reviews of the Near East members of that genus. It seems that diversity of this genus in that region is largely overestimated. But I  suggest two major additions to this MS. First, the authors synonymized a number of nominal species with G. silviae. Thus, a revised diagnosis of this species should be presented. Second, an identification key at least for Iranian spp. is necessary to explain the real differences between the species in the region.

Though my decision is "major revision", it doesn't mean that this MS has any serious problems with data or considerations. But my suggestions require a rewritting of quite large portion of text; thus, it is closer to "major" than to "minbor" revision. Nevertheless, if the authors will include the requested information, this MS can be acepted without a second round of review.

Author Response

Maggie Dong

Section Editor

Diversity

Dear Prof. Maggie Dong

Greetings.

Thanks for sending us the valuable comments/corrections made by you and two respected reviewers. The comments have been really useful to improve our work. The reviewer's efforts are greatly appreciated. I would like to inform you that we have revised the manuscript accordingly to the questions and comments.

In the following, we have provided our detailed answers to the comments. We hope that we have addressed all concerns adequately.

Both track changes and clean versions are attached.

Thanks for handling the ms.

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Hamid Reza Esmaeili

#Section Managing Editor comments

1. I) Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the

#Done.

(II) Any revisions to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track
Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that any changes can
be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers.

#Done.

(III) Please provide a cover letter to explain, point by point, the details
of the revisions to the manuscript and your responses to the referees’
comments.

#Done.

(IV) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review
reports, please include an explanation in your rebuttal.

#We implemented all the comments.

(V) The revised version will be sent to the editors and reviewers.

#Ok.

#We also added the Accession numbers of the studied specimens in the text and their details in the supplementary file.

#Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This MS is well-written and the taxonomic decisions of the authors seem to be correct.  I had an experience with Iranian Glyptothorax sent to me by colleagues, and I failed to properly identify the specimens using both recent reviews of the Near East members of that genus. It seems that diversity of this genus in that region is largely overestimated. But I suggest two major additions to this MS. First, the authors synonymized a number of nominal species with G. silviae. Thus, a revised diagnosis of this species should be presented. Second, an identification key at least for Iranian spp. is necessary to explain the real differences between the species in the region.

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comment:

A revised diagnosis of G. silviae is now presented.

An identification key for the Iranian Glyptothorax spp. is added.

Though my decision is "major revision", it doesn't mean that this MS has any serious problems with data or considerations. But my suggestions require a rewriting of quite large portion of text; thus, it is closer to "major" than to "minor" revision. Nevertheless, if the authors will include the requested information, this MS can be accepted without a second round of review.

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comment:

Rewriting of the text is done now. It was also checked using an English checker program. 

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

In the manuscript “Glyptothorax (Teleostei: Sisoridae) from the Middle East: an integrated molecular and morphological insight into its taxonomic diversity” the authors provide a thorough investigation of taxonomic diversity within the catfish genus Glyptothorax. The author’s employ a robust analytical approach, integrating three complementary sources of molecular data (mitochondrial COI, cyt b and nuclear RAG2) to clarify the phylogeny and taxonomic classification of five newly described Glyptothorax species from Iran. Established phylogenetic pipelines, were compared against a comprehensive set of morphological data to infer valid taxonomic classification and species descriptions. 

The manuscript is well written, and the data are, for the most part, clearly presented. 

Recommendation:

The morphological data presented in Table 3 is very noisy and difficult to read. Perhaps this could be moved to the supplementary and the key morphological data visualised graphically.

Minor comments:

1.     More detailed methods for the morphological analysis would be useful. The author’s state that measurements follow Ng & Dodson, however, some additional detail within the main text would be useful – how any measurements, which traits etc. Or provide a supplementary table – with measurements codes and descriptions. which morphometric measurements? 

2.     Section 2.2 of the Material and methods is not clear to me. Are these different samples to those detailed in Table 1? What are the “H” numbered codes and the numbers that follow these referring to? If simply individual sample ID codes, then state this.

3.     L214 – should this be G. cf. galaxias – based on Fig. 1?

4.     L276 – what is meant by “the same characters”?

5.     L324 – Capitalise “h” at beginning of sentence.

6.     L383 – amend sentence to … without or “with” few anterior …

7.     L402 – update “showing” to “show”

8.     L413-418 – sentence needs rephrased.

Author Response

#Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

In the manuscript “Glyptothorax (Teleostei: Sisoridae) from the Middle East: an integrated molecular and morphological insight into its taxonomic diversity” the authors provide a thorough investigation of taxonomic diversity within the catfish genus Glyptothorax. The author’s employ a robust analytical approach, integrating three complementary sources of molecular data (mitochondrial COI, cyt b and nuclear RAG2) to clarify the phylogeny and taxonomic classification of five newly described Glyptothorax species from Iran. Established phylogenetic pipelines, were compared against a comprehensive set of morphological data to infer valid taxonomic classification and species descriptions. 

The manuscript is well written, and the data are, for the most part, clearly presented. 

Recommendation:

The morphological data presented in Table 3 is very noisy and difficult to read. Perhaps this could be moved to the supplementary and the key morphological data visualised graphically.

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comments on the ms.

 Table 3 is now corrected. It is given in a new format.

Minor comments:

1. More detailed methods for the morphological analysis would be useful. The author’s state that measurements follow Ng & Dodson, however, some additional detail within the main text would be useful – how any measurements, which traits etc. Or provide a supplementary table – with measurements codes and descriptions. which morphometric measurements?

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comment.  All the used morphometric characters are mentioned in the caption of table 3. All of them follow Ng & Dodson except for few characters which have been explained in the text.

2. Section 2.2 of the Material and methods is not clear to me. Are these different samples to those detailed in Table 1?

What are the “H” numbered codes and the numbers that follow these referring to? If simply individual sample ID codes, then state this.

#Response

3. L214 – should this be G. cf. galaxias– based on Fig. 1?

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comment. It is corrected now.

4. L276 – what is meant by “the same characters”?

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comment. The sentence is rewritten.

5. L324 – Capitalise “h” at beginning of sentence.

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comment. Done.

6. L383 – amend sentence to … without or “with” few anterior …

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comment. Done.

7. L402 – update “showing” to “show”

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comment. Done.

8. L413-418 – sentence needs rephrased.

#Response

Thanks for the valuable comment.  The sentence is rephrased now.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Response to Reviewer:

 Respected reviewer

 Thanks for sending us the valuable comments/corrections to the revised version of the ms entitled: Glyptothorax (Teleostei: Sisoridae) from the Middle East: an integrated molecular and morphological insight into its taxonomic diversity.

The comments have been really useful to improve our work. The efforts are greatly appreciated. I would like to inform you that we have revised the manuscript accordingly to the questions and comments.

In the following, we have provided our detailed answers to the comments. We hope that we have addressed all concerns adequately.

Both track changes and clean versions are attached.

Sincerely Yours

Prof. Hamid Reza Esmaeili

#Reviewer Comments:

The authors improved their manuscript following previous recommendations, but they construct the diagnosis and key too formally; thus, a number of ambiguities still remain.

• Original descriptions of all nominal species synonymized with silviae should be cited in the synonymy of that species at section of the emended diagnosis with indication of a new synonymy.

#Response:

Thanks for the valuable and constructive comment.

It is done.

• The diagnosis should contain diagnostic features only. Indications on variability etc should be placed in remarks or discussed otherwise in the text.

#Response:

Thanks for the valuable and constructive comment.

It is done.

• The key seems to be very formal and may create confusion with understanding of “large” or “small” spots, “cloudy spots”; furthermore, Fig. 6a naming silviae shows a fish lacking black spots; thus, the couplet 2 of the key is not working for identification of that species. The couplet 3 is also ambiguous and contains the same state of character for both species. I believe that the fishes cannot be properly identified using the key presented.

#Response:

Thanks for the valuable and constructive comment.

The key is corrected now.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

This MS is acceptable for publication now.