Integrative Taxonomy of Costa Rican Tetrigidae (Orthoptera) Reveals Eight New Species^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I was happy to review the manuscript on Tetrigidae of Costa Rica.

I only have one minor comment: in my opinion, there should be a short phrase in the Methods chapter describing how the maps were drawn (software etc).

Best regards!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 1: I only have one minor comment: in my opinion, there should be a short phrase in the Methods chapter describing how the maps were drawn (software etc).

Answer: Thank you for your kind review. The sentence has been added.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the authors have undertaken nothing less than to revise the globally distributed, extremely populous Tetrigidae (Orthoptera, Caelifera) family, those species that live in Costa Rica, using integrative taxonomy.

 

With some compromises, this work can be considered successful, and 20 new species have even been described. The species have been described in strict accordance with taxonomic rules, supported by morphological and mitogenetic (barcode) data. Accurate images make understanding more clear.

Dear All,

At the same time, the work is also of theoretical importance, revealing and drawing attention to the difficulties of reconciling morphological and genetic data.

I absolutely support its publication!

Best wishes!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 2: I believe that the authors have undertaken nothing less than to revise the globally distributed, extremely populous Tetrigidae (Orthoptera, Caelifera) family, those species that live in Costa Rica, using integrative taxonomy. With some compromises, this work can be considered successful, and 20 new species have even been described. The species have been described in strict accordance with taxonomic rules, supported by morphological and mitogenetic (barcode) data. Accurate images make understanding more clear. Dear All, At the same time, the work is also of theoretical importance, revealing and drawing attention to the difficulties of reconciling morphological and genetic data. I absolutely support its publication! Best wishes!

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind words. All the best!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors:

This study revises the taxonomy of Costa Rican Tetrigidae  through integrative approaches combining morphology and DNA barcoding. it represents a significant contribution to Neotropical tetrigids taxonomy. the followings are my major concerns and suggestions:

1. the diagnosis of Scaria fasciata needs further modifcation. It can not separate tetrigids only on the basis of the spots on the forewings, as there is sometimes a high degree of intraspecific variability in grasshopper body coloration, and the two species are very closely related based on the gene tree. authors should have provided stronger characters that distinguish this species from the others, and should be carefull on the characters of pronotum and wings because of the variations within species. plus, the photographs of this species  are not sufficiently showing the spots.

2.Line 288, here not fig5， should be fig 6, please check, the figure order goes wrong from here.

3, for Otumba dentata, authors have to provide more photos showing the structure in detail, especially the structure mentioned in diagnosis, eg. " Vertex a little wider than eye".

4. The results of the study demonstrated some morphological and molecular conflicts, which demonstrated the limitations of  single genes coi in taxonomic work and phylogenetic studies, and also revealed the role of mitochondrial genes as well as nuclear genes in the complex classification of closely related species, as the authors did some necessary analytical discussions, and therefore it is recommended that the authors introduce and lay out this aspect of the problem in the introduction.

5. the species name in the figure 1 should be italic

Author Response

REVIEWER 3: the diagnosis of Scaria fasciata needs further modifcation. It can not separate tetrigids only on the basis of the spots on the forewings, as there is sometimes a high degree of intraspecific variability in grasshopper body coloration, and the two species are very closely related based on the gene tree. authors should have provided stronger characters that distinguish this species from the others, and should be carefull on the characters of pronotum and wings because of the variations within species. plus, the photographs of this species are not sufficiently showing the spots.

Answer: Genetic differences in COI higher than 9% are considered high and well-supported. Differences between Clypeotettix mexicanus and C. schochii are similar to two Scaria species, and Clypeotettix speecies are considered good. We agree with you that the maculation of tegmina does not seem as a sufficient character and we were astonished to find out that this Scaria population comes as sister to S. fasciata. It is important to note that this is the first systematic integrative approach to Tetrigidae of Americas, so maybe future studies will discover that maculation might be better trait than previously considered, at least in Scaria.  In the discussion, we have a sentence: „A notable example is the high molecular and low morphological difference between Scaria fasciata and S. bimaculata sp. nov. Since relatively few characters are currently recognized as useful for species differentiation [9], further studies might identify many more cryptic or nearly-cryptic species.“

Nevertheless, we have added several examples of S. fasciata and S. bimaculata tegmen colorations to Figure 5 to demonstrate that the two can be clearly delimited.

 

REVIEWER 3: Line 288, here not fig5 should be fig 6, please check, the figure order goes wrong from here.

Answer: Thank you very much, we have corrected the issue with Fig. 6 and 7 in text.

 

REVIEWER 3: for Otumba dentata, authors have to provide more photos showing the structure in detail, especially the structure mentioned in diagnosis, eg. " Vertex a little wider than eye".

Answer: We added a sentence under Fig. 9 that „Additional specimens can be examined in [1].“ [1] = OSF, Cigliano et al.; and we have corrected the first sentence of the description as „Vertex as wide or a little wider than eye.“. Otumba dentata is one of the Otumba species with the best photographic evidence in the OSF so we refer the reader directly to the database instead of reprinting the already available photographs.

 

REVIEWER 3: The results of the study demonstrated some morphological and molecular conflicts, which demonstrated the limitations of  single genes coi in taxonomic work and phylogenetic studies, and also revealed the role of mitochondrial genes as well as nuclear genes in the complex classification of closely related species, as the authors did some necessary analytical discussions, and therefore it is recommended that the authors introduce and lay out this aspect of the problem in the introduction.

Answer: Thank you. We agree that it is important to highlight the insufficiency of a single molecular marker for completely resolving the problem of species delineation and classification. Therefore, we expanded the discussion to include these points.

 

REVIEWER 3: the species name in the figure 1 should be italic

Answer: Thank you. We have corrected the Figure 1.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the manuscript is ok good for me.

best wishes