Ultrastructural Morphology and Descriptive Analysis of Cuticular Sensilla in Adult Tomicus pilifer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I find the article interesting and highly important for understanding the ecology of these insects, therefore, I would suggest it for publication. However, please take a look at the comments in the pdf file and make sure that many typos and mistakes are corrected. 

Wish you all the best and a fast publication process

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a very strong descriptive work on the ultrastructure of cuticular sensilla in adult Tomicus pilifer, with high-quality SEM pictures and measures. However, I do not think there is any strong reason for the 28S sequence; it is totally unnecessary detail. As a "major" forestry pest, this species should be easily identified by the authors, so there is no need to confirm it using 28S blast or phylogenetic analyses. Admittedly, it is not a fatal problem. 

Three specific recommendations:

1. Add picture to show the habitus or living status of the species for the general readers;
2. The first paragraph of Discussion looks too long; please split it into two or three paragraphs.
3. In the suppl. file Appendix A: Table S1. The "Reference" column confused the reference of the sequence with the reference of the name. Here I suggest they move the authors and year of the species name to the first column, following the corresponding name; the "Reference" column should be left for the references that presented the molecular sequences, if applicable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not the native speaker but feel that the authors may improve the language quality if they want. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf