New Taxonomic Insights into Paradraconema (Nematoda: Draconematidae) from Korea: Valid Establishment of P. tamraense sp. nov. from Jeju Island and Description of P. gangchii sp. nov. from Dokdo Island^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript well written, literature up-to-date and high quality of microphotographs. All comments and suggestions are added on the manuscript.  Remarks are made included to improve some drawings, descriptive terminology and presentation of measurements. I also suggest to refer to the need and additional value of molecular analysis in the future. The manuscript can be accepted for publication when remarks are taken into account.

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

It is a very good manuscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very well-written and engaging. It is supported by detailed illustrations and a wealth of high-quality photographs. The inclusion of superior SEM photos is a particular strength that greatly enhances the study.

Key recommendations for my revision:

Organization. The structure of the manuscript should be streamlined and systematized.

Geographical context. Please provide a distribution map indicating the localities of all Paradraconema species, with the new species clearly marked.

Morphometric data: crucial morphometric characters, such as the amphidial fovea, require quantitative data.

Figure annotation: a scale bar must be added to each figure caption.

All specific comments are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript file.

 

Line 62-63 in my opinion, this is an unnecessary phrase. It doesn't change anything. All three described species were described in different years 1990, 2005 and 2012. It is not entirely clear why the authors do not single out 1978?

Line 87-90 I suggest slightly expanding the conclusion by detailing where and what exactly is presented in the description. What is included in the description besides figures and photographs? Additionally, could a dichotomous key for species identification within the genus be developed?

Line 92 - In accordance with the title of the section, first there should be a description of the sampling site where the material was collected. 

Line 101 What mesh size did the authors use? 64 or 67 µm?

I have crossed out "meiofauna" because there are precise definitions for meiobenthos: organisms that pass through a 500 µm mesh but are retained on a 40 µm mesh.

Line 106-107 The text can be shortened to: "Specimens of the genus Paradraconema were extracted from meiobenthic sample”.

Line 110 Dear Authors for clearing, nematodes are transferred to Zainhorst's fluid (ZF). It is crucial to allow the ethanol and distilled water to evaporate completely. At room temperature on the lab table, this takes 1-2 days. The process can be accelerated by placing the nematodes in ZF in an incubator at a slightly elevated temperature. 

Line 125-129 Prior to drying, the specimens are dehydrated through a graded ethanol series and acetone. Please add/describe this step.

Line 130 Please specify the unit of measurement (µm) in the list of abbreviations for all length parameters.

The following morphometric characters appear to be missing and should be included: the amphid size, its distance from the anterior end, and the corresponding body diameter.

Line 145 Spicules are conventionally measured both along the arc and along the chord. Could you please explain why only a single measurement is given and clarify the meaning of "measured along the median line"? If this is a standard morphometric approach specific to family Draconematidae, this should be explicitly noted and justified in the methodology. I also did not see any measurements for the gubernaculum in Table. This species possesses one, so it should be included in the measurement table.

Line 158-165 After this section (3.1.1), a “Genus Paradraconema” diagnosis section is required.
The next section should be Type species.
This should be followed by a section on the “Valid species of the genus Paradraconema”
After that, proceed with the Diagnosis of new species.

Line 166   check the table, I highlighted in yellow where there are commas, not dots.

Table 1: The morphometric indices a, b, c, and c' are conventionally presented immediately following the body length measurements, not at the bottom of the table. I suggest relocating them to this standard position.

All figures and photos: A scale bar must be added to all figure and photograph captions. 

For example: Scale bars: (A) 100 μm, (B–C) 20 μm

Line 227 Create a separate section for the main holotype measurements and position it before the description. For example: Male (n=1): L=1050 μm, a= 4; b=28; c=…; mbd=40 μm 

Line 230 The text description should include the following morphometric data: body dimensions, amphid diameter, and spicule length (measured both along the arc and the chord) in mkm. 

It would be advisable to include a distribution map that marks the localities of the new species as well as the known species within the genus. 

Line 300-301 “The amphidial fovea is loop-shaped or faintly elongate double-spiral in males, and circular unispiral in females”. Given its diagnostic importance, this character should be highlighted in the abstract. 

Figure 9. The partial detachment of the cephalic region, visible in the provided images (A, B, C), is a preparation artefact. This should be explicitly stated in the figure captions to avoid misinterpretation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf