Fossil History of Ambrosia Beetles (Coleoptera; Platypodidae) with Description of a New Genus from Dominican Amber
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript requires minor revisions prior to publication. Suggestions and comments in the attached file and in the text. Explanations in the attached file (word format) and in the text of the manuscript (pdf file).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
We thank the referee for his constructive comments which helped to improve this manuscript.
Our answers:
- Rename the name "Platypodidae" from the title of the manuscript and the all text and replace that with the name Platypodinae.
- Correct the title, my suggestion: “Fossil history of ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Platypodinae) with description of a new genus from Dominican amber”
- Unfortunately, we cannot accept this, as we believe that Platypodidae are not part of the Curculionidae. Morphological characters confirm this. The paleontological evidence supports this if we recognize the Palaeotylinae as Platypodidae. As A.A. Legalov repeatedly wrote, the role of Ithyceridae (=Caridae, = Mesophyletidae) is underestimated. Probably they were the ancestors of the Platypodidae. It can be unequivocally stated that they are the ancestors of Curculionidae and Scolytidae, which are independent groups. It is likely that these three groups are depleted due to common genes inherited from Ithyceridae. In any case, we are not obliged to follow the generally accepted opinion if we do not agree with it. Of course, it is much easier to accept generally accepted views, but we must follow our own opinion, otherwise what will science become?
- Complete the purpose of the study in accordance with the content presented in the text.
-it was done
- Correct the subtitle "Systematic Paleontology" in chapter 3. Results as it does not correspond to its content (explanations below). I suggest replacing this title with: Description of new fossil taxa of Platypodidae or leave only the word Systematic.
-it was done
- Rename chapter "4. Discussion" to "Fossil ambrosia beetles review".
-it was done
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The main contribution of the work is describing a new fossil beetle of Platypodidae, which is of interest to the field. However, the manuscript is not well-presented as a qualified academic paper. I provide some suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
1. More contents should be added to the introduction section. The classification of the subfamilies is not clear, please add more details such as how to distinguish the subfamilies. In the third paragraph, please introduce the fossil records of Platypodidae in detail, including their names, origins, and unique aspects.
2. In Materials and Methods, please add the methods for taking the photos and making the maps.
3. In Results, Notes, This species? This part should work for the new genus, not species. Meanwhile, the attribution to the subfamily should cite related references. The identification of different subfamilies should also be included in the Introduction.
4. In Results, Comparison, add references to the comparison.
The comparison of the new genus & species with related taxa is to simple, please make a comprehensive comparison.
5. In the description of the new species, the figure 1 is not enough. Please add magnified figures for each part described, such as the legs, head, thoracic sternites.
Author Response
We thank the referee for his constructive comments which helped to improve this manuscript.
Our answers:
- More contents should be added to the introduction section. The classification of the subfamilies is not clear, please add more details such as how to distinguish the subfamilies. In the third paragraph, please introduce the fossil records of Platypodidae in detail, including their names, origins, and unique aspects.
- The key to subfamilies and tribes is given on page 5.
- A discussion of fossil finds is given in the Discussion, and a list of fossil species is given on page 12.
- Information about the adopted platypodine system added to the Introduction.
- In Materials and Methods, please add the methods for taking the photos and making the maps.
- It was done.
- In Results, Notes, This species? This part should work for the new genus, not species. Meanwhile, the attribution to the subfamily should cite related references. The identification of different subfamilies should also be included in the Introduction.
- The key to subfamilies is given on page 5.
- In Results, Comparison, add references to the comparison.
The comparison of the new genus & species with related taxa is to simple, please make a comprehensive comparison.
- It was done
- In the description of the new species, the figure 1 is not enough. Please add magnified figures for each part described, such as the legs, head, thoracic sternites.
– We have added an additional illustration.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The submission can be accepted now.
