A New Unusual Subgenus of the Genus Chrysolina (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Chrysomelinae) from the Highland Forests of China, Yunnan Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

New subgenus, Volosatik, is explictly considered in gender masculine. I am in doubts on it, because I think it should be a feminine name, for a concordance with genus Chrysolina (which is feminine). However, I am not absolutely sure in this point.

Line 166: at the end of this line there are two commas. One should be deleted, and too the extra-space.

Table 1. Considere to edit the headings so that, for example, "Antennomeres 1-3" is not separated 1-3, by down and centering 1-3. In this manner, some of the headings: Femora and tibiae, Apex of aedeagus...

Line 667. "Hiatus present only by the number of punctures in the 5th row of elytra. " May be better reformulate as: " A gap is present only by the number of punctures in the 5th row of elytra (Fig. 2)"

Congratulations to the author for this new, interesting and nice work!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for the kind review.

1. New subgenus, Volosatik, is explictly considered in gender masculine. I am in doubts on it, because I think it should be a feminine name, for a concordance with genus Chrysolina (which is feminine).

My response. According to ICZN (1999), the grammatic concordance is necessary between the generic and species names and only in some cases (ICZN, 1999, Art. 31.2). The grammatic coordance between the generic and subgeneric names are not necessary.

2. Line 166: at the end of this line there are two commas. One should be deleted, and too the extra-space.

My response. I changed the text according to this comment (however, it is line 174, not 166).

3. Table 1. Considere to edit the headings so that, for example, "Antennomeres 1-3" is not separated 1-3, by down and centering 1-3. In this manner, some of the headings: Femora and tibiae, Apex of aedeagus...

My response. I changed the Table 1 according to this comment. However, I am not sure that I understood this remark correctly. I'm ready to edit the table.

4. Line 667. "Hiatus present only by the number of punctures in the 5th row of elytra. " May be better reformulate as: " A gap is present only by the number of punctures in the 5th row of elytra (Fig. 2)"

My response. I changed the text according to this comment: “hiatus” is changed to “gap” (line 692)

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study a new subgenus of the chrysomelid beetle genus Chrysolina is described. In general (and that's not only related to this study), I don't really understand the need for describing sub-genera. That said, I have only a few commetns reagarding the manuscript/study itself that I think should be considered:

1. e.g. in the intro you refer to your previous work by something like "work done be me" (or something similar). Better write something like "privious work ..." and then cite your previous studies for this.

2. I stongly recommend to explicitly mention the number of spceimens per species you used for this study. Yes, you have listed all the vouchers incl. their museum numbers, which is definitly needed here, but to make it easier for the reader, mentioning also the number of specimens per species somewhere would be great.

3. Proper differential diagnosis missing for several species (at least I could not find them). Note, a proper diagnosis has to be differential and must inlcude, at least implicitly, comparison to similar taxa (in your case the other sceies of the subgenus; i.e. how can the species be distinguised from similar species).

4. Also, a proper differential diagnosis is missing for the whole sub-genus. The diagnosis you wrote reads more like a description.

5. The new sub-genus hast to be registered at Zoobank!!! Otherwise it won't be considerd valid.

6. Some (not too extensive) English language editing is necessary.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review.

Reviewer's Preliminary Note: I don't really understand the need for describing sub-genera.

My response: The description of the subgenera within the genus Chrysolina is a good practice and a real attempt to put things in order in this huge genus. Recently, many subgenera of the genus Chrysolina have been described: Subgenus Cyrtochrysolina Kippenberg, 2012, Subgenus Hypochalcoidea Bourdonné, 2012, Subgenus Jeanclaudia Mikhailov, 2009, Subgenus Lopatinica Kippenberg, 2012, Subgenus Medvedevlevna Özdikmen, 2008, Subgenus Pseudocrosita Lopatin, 1999, Subgenus Sibiriella L.Medvedev, 1999, Subgenus Sphaerochrysolina Kippenberg, 2010, Subgenus Upseleatlasia Bourdonné, 2012.

1. in the intro you refer to your previous work by something like "work done be me" (or something similar). Better write something like "privious work ..." and then cite your previous studies for this.

My response. Lines 39, 47, 48 are changed according to the comment.

2. I stongly recommend to explicitly mention the number of specimens per species you used for this study. Yes, you have listed all the vouchers incl. their museum numbers, which is definitly needed here, but to make it easier for the reader, mentioning also the number of specimens per species somewhere would be great.

My response. I added the “total number of specimens examined” in the lines: 241, 326, 388, 463, 525, 588, 655.

3. Proper differential diagnosis missing for several species (at least I could not find them). Note, a proper diagnosis has to be differential and must inlcude, at least implicitly, comparison to similar taxa (in your case the other sceies of the subgenus; i.e. how can the species be distinguised from similar species).

My response. The differential diagnosae are present for all originally described species, namely, Ch. ilyakabaki, Ch. igori, Ch. marinae, Ch. genriki, in accordance to ICZN (1999). However, the redescriptions of the previously described species, namely, Ch. fascinatrix, Ch. wangi, Ch. liqingzhaoae are made without differential diagnosae, because it is not necessary. Their distinguishing characters of these taxa are included in the Table 1. However, if the Reviewer will ask to add the diagnosae for previously described species, I can add them.

4. Also, a proper differential diagnosis is missing for the whole sub-genus. The diagnosis you wrote reads more like a description.

My response. I modified the diagnosis of the subgenus, lines 158-182.

5. The new sub-genus hast to be registered at Zoobank!!! Otherwise it won't be considerd valid.

My response. The Journal can register new taxa with the Zoobank. If not, I myself can apply to the Zoobank for registration, during the editorial processing of the article.

6. Some (not too extensive) English language editing is necessary.

My response. Language editing added. If it is still needed, I would prefer to contact the Editors with this request.

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript "A new unusual subgenus of the genus Chrysolina (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Chrysomelinae) from the highland forests of China, Yunnan Province" does not fall within the scope of the journal Forests. The author describes a specific entomological topic from Yunnan Province. There are no data on forest stands nor on the status of this beetle in forest ecology.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your opinion. 

In my opinion, the manuscript "A new unusual subgenus of the genus Chrysolina (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Chrysomelinae) from the highland forests of China, Yunnan Province" does not fall within the scope of the journal Forests. The author describes a specific entomological topic from Yunnan Province. There are no data on forest stands nor on the status of this beetle in forest ecology.

My response. I offered a manuscript to the special issue “Phyllophagous Forest Insects: Biodiversity and Ecology” because I believe, it shares the concepts “pyllophagous insects” (it is known that all Chrysolina species are phyllophagous) and “biodiversity”. In my opinion, the study of biodiversity is the first step in any ecological research and in the conservation of forest communities.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version is basically ready for publication. However, I guess you'll have to register the new subgenus on zoobank yourself, as I don't think this journal will do this. As mentioned in the previous review, zoobank registration is a must, as otherwise the subgenus will be considered invalid.

Author Response

I guess you'll have to register the new subgenus on zoobank yourself, as I don't think this journal will do this.

My response: I sent a request to create my account to the Zoobank.

Reviewer 3 Report

Again, while I appreciate the tremendous work of the authors and their valuable study, this is a faunistic paper. If the editors agree to publish such a paper, I am fine with that, but I would recommend that the authors at least provide data on the forest sites (what type of forest, age, ecological niche, etc.). This information would help to better understand the relationship between the insects described and the forest type.

Author Response

I would recommend that the authors at least provide data on the forest sites (what type of forest, age, ecological niche, etc.).

My response. I added a section 3.5. to the text as well as one more reference (number 11) as follows:

3.5. Biological notes

Species of the subgenus Ch. (Volosatik) inhabit the belt of alpine coniferous forests, occur under the forest canopy and in open meadow areas there. These species live in the herbaceous layer. Data on the host plants are not yet available, as is the case for most Chinese highland Chrysolina species. Most likely, beetles and larvae feed on the leaves of herbaceous plants, like all species of this genus in which host plants are known. For at least one of the studied species, namely Ch. igori, ovoviviparity was established. This is characteristic of the species of the genus Chrysolina living in high-mountain and high-latitude conditions with a lack of heat [11].