Molecular Diversity of the Genus Plagiorchis Lühe, 1899 in Snail Hosts of Central Europe with Evidence of New Lineages

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall the manuscript was very well written. The work is necessary and novel. I have a few suggestions to include that will help with the quality of the work that should be addressed by the authors. 

Overall-- at the end of each introduction paragraphs a summary sentence should be included to either wrap up the thought or tell why it matters (big picture). This is especially true for Paragraph 1 where the reader left hanging. 

55-57-- although I dont disagree I do not feel this should be the reason birds/mammals are not studied. There are multiple methods that we can assess parasites non-invassively and these should be explored. For this manuscript I suggest the authors talk about why removing a definative host from an ecosystem has more complications than first intermediate host-- these are scientific reasons for why we don't always try to sample birds/mammals. Technically-- if we follow the logic in the paper the authors are saying its ok to kill as many snails as possible. This not true nor do I think that is what they mean. Easy methods dont make good science. 

Line 58 add in the word most (not all trematodes use snails)

Line 61 should start with To date-- as time is important here. 

Line 72-77 please provide some example and support these statements. Citations are good but examples sell the points.

Line 79 unless the authors can define when the molecular era is -- I cant-- they should use a different word or just simple say when molecular analysis  become common practice. 

Line 125 how were the study sites collected. Some discussion is given on birds coming to the lakes but other have no details. Be specific on why these sites 

Sampling period varied a TON. This needs to be discussed. Also need to need know when (months) snails were collected... as this matters for infection (and usefully for other studies). Also might tell us this is high or low estimate as say sampling was done in winter when no birds were around. How snails were sampled is also important details left out. Methods similar among ponds? 

Line 153 need to know the type of camera used 

Mention formalin fixed specimens but doesnt tell us why they did this

Line 158 how were snails dissected? -- no details are also provide or citations for how snails were shed and how long. Some cercariae shed at different hours. 

Line 254 is confusing. If its a pooled sample it makes much more sense to report the range and mean in the paper. It also is very important to record the n for each character then-- otherwise we are left to assume 

Says snails were measured on Image J-- what version? using a scope ? with coverslip? how much water (was this standarized). All of these affect the measurements. What magnificiation were they measured on?

Line 360 why didnt include SE or SD. These should be added. 

Somewhere the authors should make it clear why they are naming these specimens -- need to be collaborated with an adult. Which is why its important to collect adults. 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx