Structural Monophyly Analysis Allows Estimation of Self-Sustainability at the Supraspecific Level over 88 Million Years in Mosses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of:

 

Structural monophyly analysis allows estimation of self- sustainability at supraspecific level across 88 million years in mosses

Richard H. Zander 1, *

 

 

The paper addresses to a complicated issue of the diversity evolution and sustainability, basing on examples of one group of mosses. It is not clear therefore if the discussed scenario is universal or at least widespread, i.e. the rules of four and tadpole-shaped phylogeny cold be applicable for other moss lineages.

 

One of the paper cited by author under the number [22] shows that within 110-88 mya period some moss lineages, e.g. Hypnales, changed their generic diversity not ten-fold, but hundred-folds, while tens of lineages experienced stasis without any increase in their generic diversity.

 

It is because the number of sympatric habitats in the former case increasing, while in the latter case decreasing. Or what could be the immediate reasons for such differences? A discussion on this or similar differences may better outline the requirements for the evolution as sustainable as in a case of the moss family Streptotrichaceae.

Therefore I suggest such addition, which do paper more interesting and more easily understandable.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1 
The paper addresses to a complicated issue of the diversity evolution and sustainability, basing on examples of one group of mosses. It is not clear therefore if the discussed scenario is universal or at least widespread, i.e. the rules of four and tadpole-shaped phylogeny cold be applicable for other moss lineages.

RZ: I will add that the phenomena are expected to be widespread at least in mosses given being found in 36 genera of mosses.
 

One of the paper cited by author under the number [22] shows that within 110-88 mya period some moss lineages, e.g. Hypnales, changed their generic diversity not ten-fold, but hundred-folds, while tens of lineages experienced stasis without any increase in their generic diversity.

RZ: The lineages were of clades, not taxa, and not even minimally monophyletic groups, so diversity cannot be compared without analysis with high-resolution phylogenetics. 

 

It is because the number of sympatric habitats in the former case increasing, while in the latter case decreasing. Or what could be the immediate reasons for such differences? A discussion on this or similar differences may better outline the requirements for the evolution as sustainable as in a case of the moss family Streptotrichaceae.

RZ: I have added discussion of Raup’s view of extinction and hot-bed reuse of abandoned niches by sequential new species, also the idea of gradual extinction versus point events. 

Therefore I suggest such addition, which do paper more interesting and more easily understandable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is quite interesting, offering a fresh perspective for macroevolutionary analysis. Here are some suggestions:

Why was a 22-million-year interval chosen? Have alternative interval divisions been compared or validated?
How specifically did paleoclimate changes within different intervals influence the evolutionary dynamics of Streptotrichaceae?
Consider adding key morphological characters to the Caulogram to illustrate thier variations.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

The manuscript is quite interesting, offering a fresh perspective for macroevolutionary analysis. Here are some suggestions:

Why was a 22-million-year interval chosen? Have alternative interval divisions been compared or validated?

RZ: I have added reference to the paper were this is detailed. The 22 million year measure is based on the Copernical mediocrity theorem and the age of two microgenera in the West Indies.

How specifically did paleoclimate changes within different intervals influence the evolutionary dynamics of Streptotrichaceae?

RZ: This is a study that needs to be done by someone else. Suffice it to say that the 22 million year intervals of generic origination interestingly match major epochs.

Consider adding key morphological characters to the Caulogram to illustrate thier variations.

RZ: The morphological characters are given in detail in the cited papers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author uses the moss family Streptotrichaceae as an example to propose an analytical method for macroevolution. The study discusses the rates of species formation and extinction events across geological time, offering a valuable new perspective for evolutionary biology research and a meaningful exploration. However, I believe some aspects are open to debate. For instance, the delineation of plant species based on morphological changes has always been ambiguous, and the number of species varies accordingly. Moreover, numerous factors in evolutionary history have led to vastly different fates for various groups, making the expectation of a stable number of species within each genus inconsistent with observed realities. The basis for claiming that each genus would produce four stable species is unclear. Additionally, in the estimation of species extinction rates, are the extinction figures in Table 1 accurate? How were they calculated? A major revision might be necessary, and it would be preferable to provide a computational mathematical model rather than just qualitative descriptions to accurately reconstruct the complex process of biological evolution.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

The author uses the moss family Streptotrichaceae as an example to propose an analytical method for macroevolution. The study discusses the rates of species formation and extinction events across geological time, offering a valuable new perspective for evolutionary biology research and a meaningful exploration. However, I believe some aspects are open to debate. For instance, the delineation of plant species based on morphological changes has always been ambiguous, and the number of species varies accordingly.

RZ: Not so. I found the delineation of plant species based on morphological traits entirely unambiguous, particularly when supported by ease of fitting into minimally monophyletic ancestor-descendant groups, and by Shannon-Turing Bayesian support.

 

Moreover, numerous factors in evolutionary history have led to vastly different fates for various groups, making the expectation of a stable number of species within each genus inconsistent with observed realities.

RZ: Different rates in molecular systematics do not jibe with actual rates of change in expressed traits. Analysis with descent with modification methods is better than with shared ancestry methods in actually modeling actual evolution changes rather than putative neutral tracking traits.

 

The basis for claiming that each genus would produce four stable species is unclear.

RZ: The production of four immediate descendant species from one ancestor is repeatedly explained in the cited papers. It is an optimum based on a clear cut-off at 5 species per microgranus in graphs of species per genus published by others. Immediate descendant numbers are always from one to four in analyzed minimally monophyletic groups.

 

Additionally, in the estimation of species extinction rates, are the extinction figures in Table 1 accurate? How were they calculated?

RZ: The data in Table 1 were not estimates but actual counts. They were not calculated but counted from the revision of Streptotrichaceae cites.

 

A major revision might be necessary, and it would be preferable to provide a computational mathematical model rather than just qualitative descriptions to accurately reconstruct the complex process of biological evolution.

RZ: The major revision is what was analyzed. The computational mathematical model has been submitted to another journal. It generated a fractal quadratic model using iterative function system at fractal dimension ln5/ln4. A preprint is available at RsearchGate.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an intriguing analysis of macroevolutionary systematics using structured monophyly to estimate self-sufficiency in mosses. The methodology is novel and the results contribute to evolutionary biology. However, some minor revisions would improve clarity and readability :
   - The abstract is informative but could be more concise. Consider summarizing the main results in a final sentence for greater impact.
   - The paper introduces terms such as “microgenus”, “mesogenera” and “macrogenera”. A brief summary table in the introduction defining these terms would facilitate understanding.
   - Some variables in evolutionary calculations (e.g., species extinction rates) would benefit from clearer definition or a brief methodological explanation.
   - Figures such as the caulogram (figure 2) could be improved by clearer labelling to guide the reader through key evolutionary events.  
   - Table 1 provides valuable data but could be improved by a sentence summarizing the main trends.
   - The discussion presents solid arguments, but is dense in some areas. A short concluding paragraph summarizing the main lessons of the evolution would improve fluidity.
-a statistical study is needed to validate your model such as wilcoxon , fridman .... See: 10.31181/dmame622023644 , 10.1016/j.imu.2024.101467, 10.31181/dmame060123042023m
   - Minor grammatical adjustments would improve readability. In addition, care should be taken to ensure consistency in the presentation of quotations.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 4

The paper presents an intriguing analysis of macroevolutionary systematics using structured monophyly to estimate self-sufficiency in mosses. The methodology is novel and the results contribute to evolutionary biology. However, some minor revisions would improve clarity and readability :
   - The abstract is informative but could be more concise. Consider summarizing the main results in a final sentence for greater impact.

RZ: I disagree. The final two sentences plus the first sentence are clear and impactful.

   - The paper introduces terms such as “microgenus”, “mesogenera” and “macrogenera”. A brief summary table in the introduction defining these terms would facilitate understanding.

RZ: I have added two sentences that serve to make the proper distinctions, lines 47–50.

   - Some variables in evolutionary calculations (e.g., species extinction rates) would benefit from clearer definition or a brief methodological explanation.

RZ: The variables are clearly states, e.g., descendants for that interval, gives numbers total per time interval. I have added an explanatory sentence at line 173.

   - Figures such as the caulogram (figure 2) could be improved by clearer labelling to guide the reader through key evolutionary events.  

RZ: Possibly, but the figure is already complex and crowded with generic names and dates of origination, and number of species per genus. The caption will have to suffice.

   - Table 1 provides valuable data but could be improved by a sentence summarizing the main trends.

RZ: I added a note on line 174 about summarization of main trends.

   - The discussion presents solid arguments, but is dense in some areas. A short concluding paragraph summarizing the main lessons of the evolution would improve fluidity.

RZ: I added comments in response to Raup’s and to Wilson’s important and relevant statements near the end. Otherwise, the Conclusion paragraphs deal with the complexity of the study.
-a statistical study is needed to validate your model such as wilcoxon , fridman .... See: 10.31181/dmame622023644 , 10.1016/j.imu.2024.101467, 10.31181/dmame060123042023m

RZ: This study is not a model, but is a summary of the actual data. For such work, a negative cannot be proven, and no alternative to the facts is possible, thus statistical tests are supererogatory. The numbers of species per genus are statistically well supported in the papers cited using Shannon-Turing analysis with sequential Bayes.

   - Minor grammatical adjustments would improve readability. In addition, care should be taken to ensure consistency in the presentation of quotations.

RZ: Okay.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

improvements are well done

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript and appropriately addressed all reviewer comments. I believe it has reached an acceptable level for publication, and I recommend that the editor make the final decision.