An Updated Taxonomic Appraisal of Narcissus (Amaryllidaceae) in the Maltese Islands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really liked your work, the introduction is sober and clear. The materials and methods are thoroughly explained and include an extraordinary amount of morphological characters to discern. I was tempted to ask you for a basic statistical analysis, principal components to see the behavior, you can do it if you want, but I think that with the data you present and the support in the number of individuals per population that you analyzed, you express it very clearly in the dichotomous keys, easy to understand and interpret the separation of species.

Congratulations on your work, guys.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors thank Reviewer 1 for the kind comments and constructive suggestions. We have carried out an elementary multivariate analysis in line with Reviewer 1's suggestions.  

The editorial changes suggested by Reviewer 1 are incorporated in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strong, perhaps a bit too much extended in details, study on Maltese Narcissus mostly based on classical morphology. There are only a few concerns that should be clarified viz mentioned next. Why the neo(syn)types of Hermione aequilimba were designated if there is a lectotype? It is not totally clear why it was decided that Narcissus ×briffae is a hybrid having an intermediate position. There is no any molecular or other related evidence provided to prove the hybridogenic origin of this taxon. Moreover, having so many morphological traits explored, it would be great to conduct some multidimensional scaling and/or cluster analysis showing the distinctiveness of the new hybrid from parental species. Pollen morphology seems to be almost useless for the current research and, I believe, can be eliminated or provided separately in another paper with more details. Moreover, provided here pollen photos are almost unreadable and have low quality. Other photos provided in the paper also could in better quality, I guess.
After all, I suggest a minor revision of the paper expecting to fix mentioned issues and other minor corrections indicated in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is Ok, but requires some minor corrections that I tried to cutch and indicate in the attached file too.

Author Response

The authors thank Reviewer 2 for the detailed review and insightful comments. 

We have implemented most of the 'editorial' modifications recommended with the exception of the removal of locality details from morphotype descriptions. We have also added a brief section with an nMDS, as recommended.

The changes have been incorporated in the revised manuscript. Our replies to Reviewer 2's queries are int he attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf