Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is the first comprehensive review of the family Pediculochelidae with the descriptions of three new species and an updated key to the known species. The manuscript also provides some data on the biodiversity of the species in the family. Generally, it is well prepared and written with sufficient information. I would recommend this manuscript for publication in Diversity.

Some minor corrections/comments are provided below.

 

Line 18, add sp. n. between daeira and as.

Lines 27 and 28, remove : Pediculochelidae.

Line 31, add to behind due, reads due to.

Lines 36-37, it is not clear why Womersley proposed a new genus name.

Line 128, remove F.-P. as in other names.

Line 145, should the larval stage be included here because you mentioned larva in line 142?

Line 188, italicize Pinus massoniana.

Line 191, remove A.-H. .

Line 192, remove A.-H. .

Line 226, unitalicized sp..

Line 370, daeira should be italicized.

Line 529, P. raulti should be italicized.

Line 648, should le be italicized as other setae?

Line 654, change hyphen between deutonymphs and adults to n-dash.

Line 668, add a before sister.

Line 682, it would be better to change rare everywhere to rare.

Line 683-684, the sentence …making it difficult to generalize whether they prefer a specific habitat or 683 these specimens have simply migrated from their main habitat were their population sizes 684 are large is complicated and difficult to understand.

Line 687, unitalicized sp..

Lines 721 and 722, number of genital papillae is a good trait commonly used in other groups of Oribatida. Should this be included here (as this key is based on a single species)?

Line 737, as this is a dichotomous key, the traits of epimeral setae 4a, trochanteral setation and genital setae should be provided here.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your careful consideration of our manuscript.
Below we provide answers to all your comments:

Rev.1: Line 18, add sp. n. between daeira and as.

Authors: Added

 

Rev.1: Lines 27 and 28, remove : Pediculochelidae.

Authors: Removed

 

Rev.1: Line 31, add to behind due, reads due to.

Authors: Added “to behind”

Rev.1: Lines 36-37, it is not clear why Womersley proposed a new genus name.

Authors: added “(based on the differences in the body shape and bothridial setae)”

Rev.1: Line 128, remove F.-P. as in other names.

Authors: Removed

Rev.1: Line 145, should the larval stage be included here because you mentioned larva in line 142?

Authors: Added “larva (not described)”

Rev.1: Line 188, italicize Pinus massoniana.

Authors: We isolated Pinus massoniana

Rev.1: Line 191, remove A.-H. .

Authors: Removed

 

Rev.1: Line 192, remove A.-H. 

Authors: Removed

 

Rev.1: Line 226, unitalicized sp.

Authors: Unitalicized

 

Rev.1: Line 370, daeira should be italicized.

Authors: accepted

 

Rev.1: Line 370, daeira should be italicized.

Authors: accepted

 

Rev.1: Line 529, P. raulti should be italicized.

Authors: accepted

 

Rev.1: Line 648, should le be italicized as other setae?

Authors: Italicized

 

Rev.1: Line 654, change hyphen between deutonymphs and adults to n-dash.

Authors: accepted

 

Rev.1: Line 668, add a before sister.

Authors: accepted

 

Rev.1: Line 682, it would be better to change rare everywhere to rare

Authors: changed to “rare”

Rev.1: Line 683-684, the sentence …making it difficult to generalize whether they prefer a specific habitat or 683 these specimens have simply migrated from their main habitat were their population sizes 684 are large is complicated and difficult to understand.

Authors: Sentence rewritten: “In many cases, these records are based on a small number of specimens, so it is possible that these mites could have simply migrated from their main habitat (such as soil) to numerous peripheral habitats.”

Rev.1: Line 687, unitalicized sp..

Authors: accepted

 

Rev.1: Lines 721 and 722, number of genital papillae is a good trait commonly used in other groups of Oribatida. Should this be included here (as this key is based on a single species)?

Authors: accepted, added

 

Rev.1: Line 737, as this is a dichotomous key, the traits of epimeral setae 4a, trochanteral setation and genital setae should be provided here.

Authors: deleted “; epimeral setae 4a absent; trochanteral setation 0-0-0-0; three pairs of genital setae”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the invitation to meet your manuscript titled: A review of the asexual mite genus Paralycus Womersley, 1944 (Acari: Oribatida: Pediculochelidae), with description of three new species and a key to species of the World

The study is very interesting and adds to the knowledge in the field and area of acarology. The manuscript is well written, concise and detailed. The material and methods were described in detail and used appropriately. The results are presented clearly. All graphics are presented correctly and are of good quality.

Please consider corrections:

Section 3. Results – please justify, align the text; unless editorial requirements are different.

DOI links are inactive - applies to literature items: 3, 4, 9, 13, 15,

No more comments or objections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your careful consideration of our manuscript.
Below we provide answers to all your comments:

Rev. 2: Section 3. Results – please justify, align the text; unless editorial requirements are different.

Authors: accepted

Rev. 2: DOI links are inactive - applies to literature items: 3, 4, 9, 13, 15,

Authors: DOI links were updated

Author Response File: Author Response.docx