New Insight into the Genus Cladocroce (Porifera, Demospongiae) Based on Morphological and Molecular Data, with the Description of Two New Species
, Giorgio Bavestrello 1, Do Cong Thung 3, Laura Núñez-Pons 4,5,*, Francesca Rispo 1, Jana Efremova 4,5, Valerio Mazzella 4,5, Daisy Monica Makapedua 6 and Barbara Calcinai 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Review
Paper title: New insight into the genus Cladocroce (Porifera, Demospongiae) based on morphological and molecular data, with the description of two new species
The authors examined new sponge material collected in Vietnam and Indonesia and compared it with previous data using molecular and morphological features to determine the taxonomy of their sponges. The authors found three species belonging to the genus Cladocroce (Porifera, Demospongiae). Species delimitation models and phylogenetic approaches using three molecular markers (COI, 28S, and 18S-ITS1-5.8S-ITS2-28S) provided evidence that for Cladocroce burapha and Cladocroce pansinii sp. nov. and Cladocroce lamellata sp. nov., with the latter species being delimited by morphological data only. The authors provided a description for the new sponge species and noted a new record of Cladocroce aculeata in Indonesia. The authors concluded that C. burapha overlaps in distribution with Cladocroce pansinii in Vietnam and with Cladocroce lamellata in Indonesia, and suggested that the paratype of Cladocroce burapha should be transferred to Cladocroce pansinii.
All these reasons explain the relevance of the paper by Marco Bertolino and co-authors submitted to "Journal of Marine Science and Engineering".
General scores.
The data presented by the authors are original and significant. The study is correctly designed and the authors used appropriate sampling methods. In general, statistical analyses are performed with good technical standards. The authors conducted careful work that may attract the attention of a wide range of specialists focused on poriferan taxonomy.
Recommendations.
Figure 1 is of low resolution and is difficult to understand. The authors should increase both the resolution and font size.
The authors should change “Tab. “ to “Table” when referring to corresponding tables.
The resolution of Figure 4 needs to be increased.
In the reference list, all the Latin names should be italicized.
Specific remarks.
L 24. Consider replacing “using morphological” with “by morphological”
L 29. Consider replacing “species here described” with “species described here”
L 49. Consider replacing “very closed” with “very close”
L 50. Consider replacing “marine lakes systems” with “marine lake systems”
L 52. Consider replacing “molecular evidences” with “molecular evidence”
L 54. Consider replacing “new collected samples” with “newly collected samples”
L 58. Consider replacing “here studied” with “studied here”
L 62. Consider replacing “in Bangka Island” with “on Bangka Island”
L 88. Consider replacing “Types material were” with “Type material was”
L 125. Consider replacing “specimen descriptions, have” with “specimen descriptions have”
L 148. Consider replacing “Maximum Likelyhood” with “Maximum likelihood”
L 152. Consider replacing “with GTR GAMMA model” with “with the GTR GAMMA model”
L 165. Consider replacing “with Kimura-2 parameter” with “with the Kimura-2 parameter”
L 207. Consider replacing “associated to coral reef” with “associated to coral reefs”
L 217. Consider replacing “did not describe, neither illustrate” with “did not describe or illustrate”
L 255. Consider replacing “is here rejected” with “is rejected here”
L 261. Consider replacing “here reported” with “reported here”
L 291. Consider replacing “in 130 variable” with “in 130 variables”
L 331. Consider replacing “consists in” with “consists of”
L 332. Consider replacing “consists in” with “consists of”
L 356. Consider replacing “skeleton organization” with “skeletal organization”
L 361. Consider replacing “for its tubular shape, and for the” with “by its tubular shape and”
L 363. Consider replacing “for its smooth surface, for its raised round oscula of 3-9 mm in diameter, and also for the” with “by its smooth surface, raised round oscula of 3-9 mm in diameter, and”
L 428. Consider replacing “tracts which branch” with “tracts that branch”
L 429. Consider replacing “choanosome, in between” with “choanosome, between”
L 434. Consider replacing “in the Ha-Long Bay” with “in Ha-Long Bay”
L 460. Consider replacing “in respect with the new species” with “with respect to the new species”
L 462. Consider replacing “was described for” with “has been described from”
L 472. Consider replacing “here described” with “described here”
L 474. Consider replacing “in the color” with “in the coloration”
L 483. Consider replacing “in size with” with “in size to”
L 486. Consider replacing “for the surface” with “in the surface”
L 487. Consider replacing “Spicules tracts” with “The spicule tracts”
L 507. Consider replacing “sequence of HL” with “the sequence of HL”
L 526. Consider replacing “two groups, being” with “two groups, with”
L 531. Consider replacing “composed by” with “comprised”
L 550. Consider replacing “clear separation” with “a clear separation”
L 551. Consider replacing “this last one including the previously classified as” with “with the latter including the previously classified”
L 556. Consider replacing “delimiting a separate species, but probably indicating” with “to represent a separate species, but probably indicate”
L 569. Consider replacing “composed by” with “composed of”
L 581. Consider replacing “can be a motor for the radiation of new species, forcing organisms to acclimatize and diversify across a variety” with “can be a driver of new species radiation, forcing organisms to acclimatize and diversify across a variety of”
L 585. Consider replacing “in the recent years” with “in recent years”
L 598. Consider replacing “Fact that” with “This fact”
L 607. Consider replacing “meshes size as” with “mesh sizes than”
L 613. Consider replacing “here described” with “described here”
L 619. Consider replacing “closely related with” with “closely related to”
L 624. Consider replacing “variabilities” with “variability”
L 636. Consider replacing “lower temperature” with “lower temperatures”
L 642. Consider replacing “Our work here enlarges our knowledge on species records and their distribution” with “Our work expand the knowledge of sponge species distribution”
L 643. Consider replacing “Oceans, and instigates the research in” with “oceans, and inspires research on”
L 644. Consider replacing “On what regards Porifera classification” with “Regarding the classification of Porifera”
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some revisions are requred.
Author Response
June 8th 2023
Dear Editorial Board of JMSE,
Our manuscript entitled: “New insight into the genus Cladocroce (Porifera,
Demospongiae) based on morphological and molecular data, with the description of two new species” submitted to JMSE: Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (Ms. Ref. No.: [JMSE] Manuscript ID: jmse-2362556) has now been revised attending to the reviewers’ comments and inquiries. We hope to have addressed satisfactorily the remarks from our referees. Our revised version consists on the present response letter (“'Response Letter to Reviewers'”), an annotated MARKED revised version of the MS that highlights changes made to the original version, in which edits are indicated by Word's track changes ("Revised Manuscript with Track Changes"), a Zip folder containing Figs. 1–6 in higher resolution, and a Zip folder with Supplementary material. As requested by Reviewer #3, we removed the paragraphs for molecular taxonomy results within each species section, and created a general section at the end of the morphological descriptions where we exposed all the molecular outcomes. Due to these edits, Figure 4 (Fig. 4) was moved to the end and became Fig. 6. All figures were improved in resolution and were placed as individual figures in the mentioned Zip folder, in case this could be more handy. We corrected some formatting errors in the bibliography. Please, find our detailed responses (in black) below, and locate the major edits in the MARKED MS by searching the indicated line numbers as “L XXX – XXX”. Compare the edited changes in the endorsed MARKED version of our MS ("Revised Manuscript with Track Changes"), all in conjunction addressing the referees’ and editorial comments and suggestions (in blue), which are copied underneath these lines.
Reviewers/Editor comments:
Reviewer #1: The authors examined new sponge material collected in Vietnam and Indonesia and compared it with previous data using molecular and morphological features to determine the taxonomy of their sponges. The authors found three species belonging to the genus Cladocroce (Porifera, Demospongiae). Species delimitation models and phylogenetic approaches using three molecular markers (COI, 28S, and 18S-ITS1-5.8S-ITS2-28S) provided evidence that for Cladocroce burapha and Cladocroce pansinii sp. nov. and Cladocroce lamellata sp. nov., with the latter species being delimited by morphological data only. The authors provided a description for the new sponge species and noted a new record of Cladocroce aculeata in Indonesia. The authors concluded that C. burapha overlaps in distribution with Cladocroce pansinii in Vietnam and with Cladocroce lamellata in Indonesia, and suggested that the paratype of Cladocroce burapha should be transferred to Cladocroce pansinii.
All these reasons explain the relevance of the paper by Marco Bertolino and co-authors submitted to "Journal of Marine Science and Engineering".
General scores.
The data presented by the authors are original and significant. The study is correctly designed and the authors used appropriate sampling methods. In general, statistical analyses are performed with good technical standards. The authors conducted careful work that may attract the attention of a wide range of specialists focused on poriferan taxonomy.
We thank the reviewer for considering our work as original and significant, and valuable enough to attract the attention of a wide range of specialists focused on poriferan taxonomy.
Recommendations.
Figure 1 is of low resolution and is difficult to understand. The authors should increase both the resolution and font size.
We increased the resolution of Fig. 1, but if we increase the font size, the positions of the stations are not precise; for that reason, we left the same font, but with the high resolution the numbers are clearer.
The authors should change “Tab. “ to “Table” when referring to corresponding tables.
“Tab. “ was replaced by “Table” in all instances, as suggested.
The resolution of Figure 4 needs to be increased.
We increased the resolution of Fig. 4
In the reference list, all the Latin names should be italicized.
Thank you for this observation we corrected the font accordingly.
Specific remarks.
L 24. Consider replacing “using morphological” with “by morphological”
We corrected as suggested.
L 29. Consider replacing “species here described” with “species described here”
We corrected as suggested.
L 49. Consider replacing “very closed” with “very close”
To reach a compromise with reviewers 1 and 2, we now edited as “very closely aligned”
L 50. Consider replacing “marine lakes systems” with “marine lake systems”
We corrected as suggested.
L 52. Consider replacing “molecular evidences” with “molecular evidence”
We corrected as suggested.
L 54. Consider replacing “new collected samples” with “newly collected samples”
We corrected as suggested.
L 58. Consider replacing “here studied” with “studied here”
We corrected as suggested.
L 62. Consider replacing “in Bangka Island” with “on Bangka Island”
We corrected as suggested.
L 88. Consider replacing “Types material were” with “Type material was”
We corrected as suggested.
L 125. Consider replacing “specimen descriptions, have” with “specimen descriptions have”
We corrected as suggested.
L 148. Consider replacing “Maximum Likelyhood” with “Maximum likelihood”
We corrected as suggested.
L 152. Consider replacing “with GTR GAMMA model” with “with the GTR GAMMA model”
We corrected as suggested.
L 165. Consider replacing “with Kimura-2 parameter” with “with the Kimura-2 parameter”
We corrected as suggested.
L 207. Consider replacing “associated to coral reef” with “associated to coral reefs”
We corrected as suggested.
L 217. Consider replacing “did not describe, neither illustrate” with “did not describe or illustrate”
We corrected as suggested.
L 255. Consider replacing “is here rejected” with “is rejected here”
We corrected as suggested.
L 261. Consider replacing “here reported” with “reported here”
We corrected as suggested.
L 291. Consider replacing “in 130 variable” with “in 130 variables”
We changes “variable” by “variable sites”
L 331. Consider replacing “consists in” with “consists of”
We corrected as suggested.
L 332. Consider replacing “consists in” with “consists of”
We corrected as suggested.
L 356. Consider replacing “skeleton organization” with “skeletal organization”
We corrected as suggested.
L 361. Consider replacing “for its tubular shape, and for the” with “by its tubular shape and”
We corrected as suggested.
L 363. Consider replacing “for its smooth surface, for its raised round oscula of 3-9 mm in diameter, and also for the” with “by its smooth surface, raised round oscula of 3-9 mm in diameter, and”
We corrected as suggested.
L 428. Consider replacing “tracts which branch” with “tracts that branch”
We corrected as suggested.
L 429. Consider replacing “choanosome, in between” with “choanosome, between”
We corrected as suggested.
L 434. Consider replacing “in the Ha-Long Bay” with “in Ha-Long Bay”
We corrected as suggested.
L 460. Consider replacing “in respect with the new species” with “with respect to the new species”
We corrected as suggested.
L 462. Consider replacing “was described for” with “has been described from”
We corrected as suggested.
L 472. Consider replacing “here described” with “described here”
We corrected as suggested.
L 474. Consider replacing “in the color” with “in the coloration”
We corrected as suggested.
L 483. Consider replacing “in size with” with “in size to”
We corrected as suggested.
L 486. Consider replacing “for the surface” with “in the surface”
We corrected as suggested.
L 487. Consider replacing “Spicules tracts” with “The spicule tracts”
We corrected as suggested.
L 507. Consider replacing “sequence of HL” with “the sequence of HL”
We corrected as suggested.
L 526. Consider replacing “two groups, being” with “two groups, with”
We corrected as suggested.
L 531. Consider replacing “composed by” with “comprised”
We corrected as suggested.
L 550. Consider replacing “clear separation” with “a clear separation”
We corrected as suggested.
L 551. Consider replacing “this last one including the previously classified as” with “with the latter including the previously classified”
We corrected as suggested.
L 556. Consider replacing “delimiting a separate species, but probably indicating” with “to represent a separate species, but probably indicate”
We corrected as suggested.
L 569. Consider replacing “composed by” with “composed of”
We corrected as suggested.
L 581. Consider replacing “can be a motor for the radiation of new species, forcing organisms to acclimatize and diversify across a variety” with “can be a driver of new species radiation, forcing organisms to acclimatize and diversify across a variety of”
We corrected as suggested.
L 585. Consider replacing “in the recent years” with “in recent years”
We corrected as suggested.
L 598. Consider replacing “Fact that” with “This fact”
We corrected as suggested.
L 607. Consider replacing “meshes size as” with “mesh sizes than”
We corrected as suggested.
L 613. Consider replacing “here described” with “described here”
We corrected as suggested.
L 619. Consider replacing “closely related with” with “closely related to”
We corrected as suggested.
L 624. Consider replacing “variabilities” with “variability”
We corrected as suggested.
L 636. Consider replacing “lower temperature” with “lower temperatures”
L 642. Consider replacing “Our work here enlarges our knowledge on species records and their distribution” with “Our work expand the knowledge of sponge species distribution”
We corrected as suggested.
L 643. Consider replacing “Oceans, and instigates the research in” with “oceans, and inspires research on”
We corrected as suggested.
L 644. Consider replacing “On what regards Porifera classification” with “Regarding the classification of Porifera”
We corrected as suggested!
The authors very much appreciate the constructive comments raised by all reviewers, which have notoriously helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. We hope this new version meets the requirements for publication acceptance in JMSE.
Looking forward to hearing again back from you soon,
Yours sincerely,
Laura Núñez-Pons and Co-authors
Please see the attachment as well.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
An excellent addition to sponge taxonomy, based on morphological and molecular evidence. Good descriptions, easy to read text, and a fair discussion about how we determine and understand diversity. Cladocroce sponges can be very difficult to determine, due to poor descriptions, and these authors have done an excellent job in rectifying prior issues in taxonomy. This region is rich in sponges, and detailed descriptions aid in our understanding of diversity and drivers.
Minor edits in introduction/discussion to be considered (text altered in red)
All figures: higher resolution needed for publication
For methods: were any permits needed for the fieldwork? Mention here if there were.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Quality of English is generally excellent, only a few minor changes were considered necessary, to aid the flow of a few sentences.
Author Response
Dear Editorial Board of JMSE,
Our manuscript entitled: “New insight into the genus Cladocroce (Porifera,
Demospongiae) based on morphological and molecular data, with the description of two new species” submitted to JMSE: Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (Ms. Ref. No.: [JMSE] Manuscript ID: jmse-2362556) has now been revised attending to the reviewers’ comments and inquiries. We hope to have addressed satisfactorily the remarks from our referees. Our revised version consists on the present response letter (“'Response Letter to Reviewers'”), an annotated MARKED revised version of the MS that highlights changes made to the original version, in which edits are indicated by Word's track changes ("Revised Manuscript with Track Changes"), a Zip folder containing Figs. 1–6 in higher resolution, and a Zip folder with Supplementary material. As requested by Reviewer #3, we removed the paragraphs for molecular taxonomy results within each species section, and created a general section at the end of the morphological descriptions where we exposed all the molecular outcomes. Due to these edits, Figure 4 (Fig. 4) was moved to the end and became Fig. 6. All figures were improved in resolution and were placed as individual figures in the mentioned Zip folder, in case this could be more handy. We corrected some formatting errors in the bibliography. Please, find our detailed responses (in black) below, and locate the major edits in the MARKED MS by searching the indicated line numbers as “L XXX – XXX”. Compare the edited changes in the endorsed MARKED version of our MS ("Revised Manuscript with Track Changes"), all in conjunction addressing the referees’ and editorial comments and suggestions (in blue), which are copied underneath these lines.
Reviewer #2: An excellent addition to sponge taxonomy, based on morphological and molecular evidence. Good descriptions, easy to read text, and a fair discussion about how we determine and understand diversity. Cladocroce sponges can be very difficult to determine, due to poor descriptions, and these authors have done an excellent job in rectifying prior issues in taxonomy. This region is rich in sponges, and detailed descriptions aid in our understanding of diversity and drivers.
We really appreciate the kind comments from the reviewer. And yes, we agree Cladocroce are tough guys to identify!
Minor edits in introduction/discussion to be considered (text altered in red)
We integrated the edits, thank you.
All figures: higher resolution needed for publication
All figures’ resolutions were meliorated.
For methods: were any permits needed for the fieldwork? Mention here if there were.
We collected the samples in the frame of international cooperation projects as addressed in the funding paragraph.
Authors further integrated the suggested modifications provided in the PDF provided by Rev#2 in our new MS version. We appreciated the edits.
The authors very much appreciate the constructive comments raised by all reviewers, which have notoriously helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. We hope this new version meets the requirements for publication acceptance in JMSE.
Looking forward to hearing again back from you soon,
Yours sincerely,
Laura Núñez-Pons and Co-authors
Please see the attachment as well.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors - this is a very interesting study and you have used morphology and molecular systematics to good effect to support the integrity of species and distinction between several new species of Cladocroce.
I do not find much wrong with the study except that the expression needs to be improved ( I do not have the time to do more than I have) and there is an inconsistency with the addition of Taxonomic authorities and dates. As a general rule of thumb, the first time a taxon is mentioned in the abstract and then in the Introduction, the taxonomic authority and date should always be added. The second and subsequent uses do not require this. That include all higher taxon as well.
It would be helpful to have a table that compared all the known species in one place, in terms of spiculation and live characters.
My other concern is that the morphological characterisations should be separated form the molecular investigations, and that the latter sections should be combined at the end. These sections are lengthy and very convoluted and confusing and I got quite lost.
I feel it would be best if all molecular research is highlighted in one place and clearly sets out to discuss one species at a time.
So: describe the morphology of each species and outline issues in the remarks sections. Then at the very end, bring to bear the molecular work to deal with the issues raised in the morphology.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Needs to be improved with an english speaker
Author Response
Dear Editorial Board of JMSE,
Our manuscript entitled: “New insight into the genus Cladocroce (Porifera,
Demospongiae) based on morphological and molecular data, with the description of two new species” submitted to JMSE: Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (Ms. Ref. No.: [JMSE] Manuscript ID: jmse-2362556) has now been revised attending to the reviewers’ comments and inquiries. We hope to have addressed satisfactorily the remarks from our referees. Our revised version consists on the present response letter (“'Response Letter to Reviewers'”), an annotated MARKED revised version of the MS that highlights changes made to the original version, in which edits are indicated by Word's track changes ("Revised Manuscript with Track Changes"), a Zip folder containing Figs. 1–6 in higher resolution, and a Zip folder with Supplementary material. As requested by Reviewer #3, we removed the paragraphs for molecular taxonomy results within each species section, and created a general section at the end of the morphological descriptions where we exposed all the molecular outcomes. Due to these edits, Figure 4 (Fig. 4) was moved to the end and became Fig. 6. All figures were improved in resolution and were placed as individual figures in the mentioned Zip folder, in case this could be more handy. We corrected some formatting errors in the bibliography. Please, find our detailed responses (in black) below, and locate the major edits in the MARKED MS by searching the indicated line numbers as “L XXX – XXX”. Compare the edited changes in the endorsed MARKED version of our MS ("Revised Manuscript with Track Changes"), all in conjunction addressing the referees’ and editorial comments and suggestions (in blue), which are copied underneath these lines.
Reviewer #3: Dear authors - this is a very interesting study and you have used morphology and molecular systematics to good effect to support the integrity of species and distinction between several new species of Cladocroce.
We thank the reviewer for the positive feed-back regarding our work, we feel satisfied about these observations.
I do not find much wrong with the study except that the expression needs to be improved ( I do not have the time to do more than I have) and there is an inconsistency with the addition of Taxonomic authorities and dates. As a general rule of thumb, the first time a taxon is mentioned in the abstract and then in the Introduction, the taxonomic authority and date should always be added. The second and subsequent uses do not require this. That include all higher taxon as well.
Taxonomic authorities and dates were corrected in the text according to the indications raised by the reviewer.
It would be helpful to have a table that compared all the known species in one place, in terms of spiculation and live characters.
We have provided a table as proposed by the reviewer.
My other concern is that the morphological characterisations should be separated form the molecular investigations, and that the latter sections should be combined at the end. These sections are lengthy and very convoluted and confusing and I got quite lost.
I feel it would be best if all molecular research is highlighted in one place and clearly sets out to discuss one species at a time.
So: describe the morphology of each species and outline issues in the remarks sections. Then at the very end, bring to bear the molecular work to deal with the issues raised in the morphology.
We have modified the text as suggested, removing the molecular paragraphs for each species, and creating a general molecular taxonomy section after the morphological descriptions. See L 1147 – 1260.
Authors further integrated the suggested modifications in the PDF provided by Rev#3 file in our new MS version. We appreciated the proposed corrections.
we changed the hyphen with the En-dash for date and numbers as suggested by the referee.
L 202: we accepted the suggestions about strongyles’shape.
L 215: we accepted the suggestion
L 247: we added the general measurements as requested for all the species, a the beginning of the spicule descriptions.
The authors very much appreciate the constructive comments raised by all reviewers, which have notoriously helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. We hope this new version meets the requirements for publication acceptance in JMSE.
Looking forward to hearing again back from you soon,
Yours sincerely,
Laura Núñez-Pons and Co-authors
Please see the attachment as well.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
