Chaetarcturus cervicornis sp. n., a New Ross Sea Isopod of the Genus Chaetarcturus Brandt, 1990 (Crustacea, Malacostraca)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Normally, when doing a review I attach a marked up copy of the Ms with minor corrections and suggestions. I don't think there's a point to that here because this Ms need a LOT of work. Here are some general problems:

1) Avoid subjective terms like "peculiar".

2) Do not write "sp.." at the end of a sentence.

3) The scientific names are not italicized in the figures.

4) "96% ethanol" - really?

5) PL = pleopod on page 3 but Plp = pleopod in the description.

6) Why are the authors and dates listed after every single mention of a genus or species repetitively?

7) A "Chaetarcturus distribution table" is really a "Chaetarcturus species distribution table."

8) "C. Brandt, 1990" is very, very incorrect.

9) Table 1 shows 8 species (+ subspecies) in the genus and yet on page 10 there are only SIX species in the genus - including one which is not listed in Table 1!

10) sp. n. OR n. sp.? You have both.

11) The descriptive text needs to be TELEGRAPHIC - it is not. Also needs proofing (e.g., "present in pereonite" is wrong).

12) Much use of "in holotype" in the desctiption - this is self-evident as there is ONLY a holotype.

13) 3.1.5. Type locality? Where? Not here.

14) BL used by NOT defined.

15) Avoid "Body. Body long..." and similar.

16) "scale refers to 5 mm"? Why not "scale = 5 mm?

17) The caption for Fig. 6 is in dire need of rewriting as I can't figure out what the authors are trying to say.

Conclusion: This paper appears to be rather a slap-dash affair that needs a bit of grammatical reworking and a lot of proofreading.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Here in the attachment the point-by-point response to your comments and revisions. I apologize for my late response. I corrected the mistakes you underlined in my manuscript. Please confirm.

I also provided to add a new figure and new part of description of MNA 10739. Don't hesitate to ask me explanations if you need to.

Thanking you for your expertise and precision,

                                                                       Nicholas Noli 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a detailed paper on a new species of Chaetarcturus. This is a well put together manuscript with excellent illustrations. There are some ambiguities about the new species. As the authors well mentioned this new species is similar to C. adareanus (Hodgson, 1902). I had chance to search in Smithsonian invertebrates collection (http://n2t.net/ark:/65665/37fa4e742-d81d-4b8d-ac84-8411e51ae32a). There is specimen of Chaetarcturus adareanus (Hodgson, 1902) Catalog Number: USNM 42184; from South Atlantic Ocean; Scotia Sea, South Sandwich Islands. This species figures are very similar to the new species. At the other hand, it seems that you compare your species with the original illustration of the Chaetarcturus adareanus (Hodgson, 1902). Did the authors try to loan the type species? My suggestion is to clear up any ambiguities about similarity of your species with C. adareanus. Examination of type species is necessary (if available or can be loan) and the Smithsonian specimen as well.

Regarding to description: You can provide a generic diagnosis with a remarks to the genus Chaetarcturus at first, then the diagnosis to the new species and after that you can bring the main description. The contents of the Description of the species should be revised. All genus-level characters in the description section have been removed. You should replace the old terminology with new ones (e.g. Antenna 1 and 2 with Antennula and Antenna).

Regarding to figures: However, the quality of your figures is excellent, but not adequate.

Being based on one male identification could be difficult without full description. However, Chaetarcturus cryophilus has been described with Hille et al., 2002 based on single specimen. But they included all characters and all appendages illustrations. You can fallow that paper. (e.g. the pleopod 2 and appendix masculina is very important character).

Page 1, Line 39: Based on WoRMS the depth range for two species are: Chaetarcturus abyssalis (Birstein, 1963): Depth range 5670-6135 and C. ultraabyssalis (Birstein, 1963): Depth range 6435-7280. It should be recheck in Birstein, 1963.

Page 5, Line 154: Is the large process are spine (su- praocular spines)? Or projections?

Page 6, Line 169: Caudal part of pleotelson with two long and stout spines (are there real spines)?

Page 6, Line 191: Endopod with many setulated setae/ replace with plumose marginal setae.

Page 6: There is no information provided in the text about the penial processes: However, there is a drawing of penis in figure 4D. PLZ add some information about the penes (e.g. about the length, entirely fused or not?)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Here in the attachment my point-by-point response to your comment. I apologize for my late response. I understand the problems you underlined in the manuscript, thus I provided to add PL2 and penial processes description, with a new digital-inking drawing of MNA 10739's PL2 and appendix masculina.

Don't hesitate to contact me if you need anything.

Thanking you for your expertise and precision,

                                                                 Nicholas Noli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Numerous small corrections marked on the MS, mostly involving fixing the description so as to be in correct telegraphic style. More substantive issues are a missing scale bar in Fig 7 and a constant reference to C. brunneus and C. brunneus brunneus as if they were different taxa; they are not & cannot be cited twice as if they were. Because of this, figures Table 1 & Figure 3 must also be fixed so that this taxon only appears ONCE in each.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I provided to fix mistakes reported. Please see the attachment.

Thank you for your expertise, I fixed the description of the species according to your suggestions. In the new draft of the manuscript I left some comments in order to point major corrections and doubts. Please don't hesitate to contact me if necessary.

Thanking you again for your knowledge and patience, 

                                                                    Nicholas Noli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Page 5, Line 141:

Genus diagnosis should be Generic diagnosis.

Page 5, Line 148: “Dactylus of P2-7 long, bearing 148 long setae (filter spines), distal pair of claws short.” Not diagnostic, should be omitted.

Page 6, Line 153: before “Measurements. BL = 20 mm.”: You have to add: Description (based on holotype male)

Measurements. BL = 20 mm.

Author Response

I provided to fix issues you reported, please confirm. In the attachment, the point-by-point response to your suggested corrections.

Thank you for your expertise and patience, don't hesitate to contact me for any doubt regarding the manuscript. 

Thanking you again,

                                          Nicholas Noli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx