A Review of Bat Fleas (Siphonaptera: Ischnopsyllidae) from Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on a well designed and conducted study.  It is relevant and a major contribution to our knowledge of the Ischnopsyllidae in Russia.  The paper is succinctly written, organized and captures the intended subject.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer and have taken into account all his edits in the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID. diversity-3674576

Entitled: A review of bat fleas (Siphonaptera: Ischnopsyllidae) from Russia

Authors: Orlova et al. 

Reviewer comments:

This manuscript represents an analysis of new records and an updated list of ectoparasitic fleas of the family Ischnopsyllidae associated with bats in the Russian Federation. Relevant data on their distribution, a graph of host-ectoparasite interactions, and new records in general are provided.

This is a well-updated analysis; however, some errors or inconsistencies were detected, which are indicated below:

Comments:

Note 1: Lines 48-51:

Authors in the first paragraph and first sentence indicate the following:

“… Ischnopsyllidae comprises 120 species across 20 genera within two subfamilies – Ischnopsyllinae Wahlgren, 1907 and Thaumapsyllinae Jordan, 1947 – representing approximately 6% of the order’s total diversity. Approximately 15% of bat species are recorded as hosts of fleas family Ischnopsyllidae.”

    I suggest sustaining these arguments with a cited reference.

Note 2: Line 77:

Author name O.I. Scalon … Should be indicated with the correct name as: O.I. Skalon

In reference 13, the author´s name is indicated as Scalon, O.I. – it should be Skalon, O.I.

Note 3: Lines 130-131: 

M. brandtii group

I suggest adding the name of the authority of this species of bat (even as the author in this paragraph mentioned as M. brandtii group) should be added.

 Note 4: Line 139:

Siberian tube-nosed bat, Mu. hilgendorfi Peters.

Authors should review the original species name of Herpyiocephalus hilgendorfi Peters was corrected to Mu. hilgendorfi (Peters)—with parentheses to the species authority—and that the genus name was updated.

Note 5: Lines 152-155:

“Visualisation of flea-host relationships was performed using the ‘bipartite’ package in R version 4.3.4 [57]. The number of publications reporting a particular flea species infesting a bat host, was used as a background for constructing the bipartite graph.”

I suggest associating this method with Figure 11 and adding the Figure number in this sentence.

Note 6: Materials and Methods paragraphs:

I suggest indicating the Laboratory and Institution where all the fleas collected were deposited.

 Note 7: Line 235:

There is a missing point when separating one sentence.

Note 8: Lines 274-275:

All authorities of the bat-host species were indicated only by the name (the first time that each bat-host species name was indicated in the main text) -do this throughout-. Therefore, for example, Rhinolophus hipposideros (Bechstein, 1800) and Nyctalus aviator (Thomas, 1911) should be: Rhinolophus hipposideros (Bechstein); Nyctalus aviator (Thomas) respectively.

Note 9: Lines 387- 388, 510-512, and 606-608:

The authorities of the species are missing (in the current species name and the synonyms). Authors should correct the information.

Note 10: Lines 612-613, 615, 627, 749, 752:

It is supposed that all references cited in the main text should be indicated with a number (to associate those numbers with the list of references at the end of the manuscript.

Therefore, the citation rules of the journal should be followed.

Note 11: Line 620:

Correct to the year of the authority of this species.

Note 12: Line 645, 703

“Genus” should be indicated in English, not in Russian.

 Note 13:

There are missing data in the References listed: 19 and 98 in the Final list of references.

Therefore, the main text has no associated citations.

Then, ALL cited references should be reviewed throughout.

Authors should arrange all references according to the reference list associated with the main text.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer and have taken into account all his edits in the text.