Review Reports
by
- Loretta Guidi 1,*,
- Maria Balsamo 1,2 and
- M. Antonio Todaro 3
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Chuangye Yang Reviewer 3: Dobrochna Ginter-Kramarczyk
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well-written and well-executed with excellent descriptions and adequate, helpful images. Interpretation is balanced and fair with appropriate reference to the literature. Overall, this study adds valuable insight to a very understudied field and I would recommend publication with, perhaps, a few minor changes.
My largest complaint is that I would have preferred a few more details on the overall anatomy relative to the reproductive anatomy of Macrodasys sp. 3, especially since this is not a formally described species. Why was documentation of the frontal organ only available with TEM? Is the fo not otherwise evident for this species with light microscopy?
There are also a few, very minor changes below:
Page 1, line 36: ”there are two, paired testes…”
- I suggest changing to ”there are paired testes” since having both ”two” and ”paired” makes it sound like there are four testes
Page 7, line 220: ”co-copulatory organ”
- I suggest changing this to ”co-caudal organ” for consistency since that is the term you use throughout the manuscript
Page 7, line 220-221: ”cp-caudal organ, pore”
- Remove comma between ”caudal organ” and ”pore”
Page 11, line 275: ”Taxa as Mesodasys…”
- ”Taxa” is incorrectly italicized
Page 13, line 353: ”…of the caudal organ if it has…”
- Remove ”if it” (i.e. the sentence should be ” For instance, how is it possible that the copulatory tube is everted laterally if the posterior portion of the glandulomuscular part of the caudal organ has no opening?”)
Author Response
Replies to Referee 1
My largest complaint is that I would have preferred a few more details on the overall anatomy relative to the reproductive anatomy of Macrodasys sp. 3, especially since this is not a formally described species. Why was documentation of the frontal organ only available with TEM? Is the fo not otherwise evident for this species with light microscopy?
The frontal organ of Macrodasys sp.3 is similar in morphology to that of M. caudatus.
Macrodasys sp.3 has a lower number of adhesive tubules than Macrodasys caudatus.
The authors could not make the optical microscope images because the camera had problems during the observation.
Page 1, line 36: ”there are two, paired testes…”
- I suggest changing to ”there are paired testes” since having both ”two” and ”paired” makes it sound like there are four testes
Suggestion accepted
Page 7, line 220: ”co-copulatory organ”
- I suggest changing this to ”co-caudal organ” for consistency since that is the term you use throughout the manuscript
Suggestion accepted
Page 7, line 220-221: ”cp-caudal organ, pore”
- Remove comma between ”caudal organ” and ”pore”
Suggestion accepted
Page 11, line 275: ”Taxa as Mesodasys…”
- ”Taxa” is incorrectly italicized
Suggestion accepted
Page 13, line 353: ”…of the caudal organ if it has…”
- Remove ”if it” (i.e. the sentence should be ” For instance, how is it possible that the copulatory tube is everted laterally if the posterior portion of the glandulomuscular part of the caudal organ has no opening?”)
Suggestion accepted
Reviewer 2 Report
No comments about paper.
Author Response
Replies to Referee 2 : no observations.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presented for review concerns Gastrotricha Macrodasyida, aquatic worms, are primarily hermaphrodites with internal cross-fertilization and indirect sperm transfer. Insightful information on this matter dates to 1978 and derive from a work focused on two Macrodasys species. Therefore the role as a "model" of this taxon clashes, however, with the relative paucity of data concerning the ultrastructure of the accessory organs involved in the sperm transfer. A comprehensive introduction explains why this topic was addressed in the journal Water. A comprehensive introduction explains why this topic was addressed in the journal Water. The article is very interesting, well supported by rich literature. However, it requires a few adjustments:
1. There is no chapter 3.3 in the text. Please sort the chapter numbers.
2. Please make the correct quotation on the lines: 34, 46, 49, 74, 79.
3. Please correct the citation in line 275.
4. I also suggest that throughout the text, when referring to figures, use a full notation such as, for example, in line 124 and not as, for example, in line 131.
In my opinion, the presented analysis is an excellent field for further research in the field of biology / microbiology.
Moreover, the publication is a valuable source of information and forms the basis for further research.
Thank you for considering my opinion. I encourage the authors to continue working on improving the manuscript.
Author Response
Replies to Referee 3 :
- There is no chapter 3.3 in the text. Please sort the chapter numbers.
Actually, it was a misprint, we corrected
- Please make the correct quotation on the lines: 34, 46, 49, 74, 79.
We have checked all the citations specified and we consider all of them as relevant to this text passage.
- Please correct the citation in line 275.
As above.
- I also suggest that throughout the text, when referring to figures, use a full notation such as, for example, in line 124 and not as, for example, in line 131.
The full notation refers to a single figure, not to single parts of the figures, according to the journal’s rules: thus in the line 124 we refer to two distinct figures, in the line 131 we refer to a single figure