Morphological and Anatomical Characterization of Stems in Lilium Taxa
and Fang Du 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editors and Authors,
The manuscript titled "Morphological and anatomical characterization of stem of Lilium wild species and cultivars" provides an excellent overview of the morphological and anatomical stem characteristics of the examined wild species and cultivars. Its contribution lies in addressing a gap in scientific knowledge by providing new insights that offer guidance for future research. The study presents numerous valuable results, supported by a rich visual presentation. The manuscript is well-structured, and the references cited are both relevant and recent.
Below, I provide detailed comments organized by section and specific points, while additional remarks are indicated directly in the annotated PDF.
I suggest a minor revision of the title for language clarity, which I have noted in the PDF.
The abstract is too long and should be shortened in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.
Although the introduction is thoughtfully structured, it could benefit from more background information to better frame the study. For example, in the first paragraph, it would be beneficial to include more information on species and species classification along with adding references to previous studies (lines 58–60), including a brief explanation of what has been discovered so far. However, I understand that the authors may have wished to stay focused on the main topic.
Some corrections are necessary in the Methods section, particularly regarding the parameters examined, which I have discussed in more detail in the PDF.
The Results section is clearly structured, but I also advise several changes. First, I recommend harmonizing the order of parameters—if a certain sequence is established in the Methods (e.g., quantitative morphological traits followed by descriptive traits), the same sequence should be maintained when presenting the results. For instance, if plant height and stem diameter are listed first in the Methods, the results should begin with those rather than stem coloration.
Please relocate all tables and figures immediately after the paragraph in which they are first mentioned.
The figures presenting graphs (distribution diagrams and boxplots) in the Results section are very small, although they contain important information. This should be corrected to ensure visibility. One option is to separate the anatomical images from these graphs and make two separate figures. This would allow the graphs to be enlarged for better readability, while the anatomical images (which are currently clear) can remain as they are. Although this would increase the number of figures, clarity is more important—especially since the manuscript does not include tables with numerical data, making the boxplots particularly important for conveying values.
In the supplementary materials, please add explanations for all abbreviations. I recommend referring to the supplementary data in the manuscript where appropriate, renaming it as Table 1 (morphological and anatomical data), and referring to the correlation data as Table 2. It is also necessary for each figure or table to be self-explanatory, meaning that all abbreviations used should be clearly defined within the caption or the figure/table itself.
Lines 436–439 and Figure 9: While this classification is valuable, it is not entirely clear whether it was developed specifically for this discussion or whether it is based on your previous research. If it stems from earlier work, a reference should be added both in the text and in the figure caption. If it was developed for the purposes of this study, then it constitutes a result and should be moved to the Results section, with an explanation of the methods used provided in the Methods section.
The Discussion is excellent—it provides many relevant insights and successfully links your results with previous studies. You have also clearly articulated the novel contributions of your work and its scientific significance.
Since there is no Conclusion section, you might consider renaming the final subsection (4.3) to something like Concluding remarks: Taxonomic significance of… and ending the manuscript with directions for future research. This may help round off the study more clearly.
Kind regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English language is generally fine, but there is still room for improvement throughout the manuscript. Some sentences contain grammatical errors, redundant words, inappropriate tense usage, or are slightly unclear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a relevant study of the stem of Lilium wild species and cultivars and contributes substantially as a basis for further studies.
Table 1. Move acronym information from table caption to table title
In general, the quality of the images of the cross-sections of the stem of Lilium is very low, lacking contrast, and should be accompanied by more detailed images.
In figures 5, 6 and 7 it is not possible to indicate with arrows or letters what is meant to be indicated in the micrographs, it will be difficult to distinguish what is indicated in the text for the public not familiar with plant histology. Although the acronyms of the details to be indicated are indicated in the text of the figures, they do not appear in the micrographs.Also, the scale bars are not visible, it is better to point them out in the text of the figure.
In figure 7.A, the distribution of the vascular bundles is not well distinguished, enlarge the image or provide another, more detailed image.
The quality of the image in Figure 9 should be improved.
No statistical test was used to analyze the difference between the means of more than two groups by analyzing variance, such as the density of vessel clusters and their area shown in the graphs. Therefore, there is no resolution of the hypotheses.
I believe that the resolution of your clustering analysis would be improved by applying discriminant analysis to find a linear combination of traits that characterize or separate species and cultivars, as a suggestion. The other analyses seem to me to be correct to generate hypotheses about the variables that contribute to the separation of species and cultivars.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editors and Authors,
All my previous concerns have been addressed, and I believe the manuscript has been improved in all the aspects I initially commented on. However, I have a few additional remarks.
They primarily concern terminology, as well as suggestions for further clarification in specific sentences or figure captions. In some instances, it is necessary to include additional methodological details, restructure sentences for better clarity, or rephrase certain parts of the text to avoid potential confusion. All suggestions and comments are provided in the attached PDF file.
Kind regards
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 AuthorsMy only concern remains with some of the figures. In figure 11, only fig. A has the weaves pointed out and the other figures do not look the same. Figure 13 also needs looking at, what's surrounding the bundled leaf?
Author Response
Comments 1: My only concern remains with some of the figures. In figure 11, only fig. A has the weaves pointed out and the other figures do not look the same. Figure 13 also needs looking at, what's surrounding the bundled leaf?
Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. In Figure 11, all structures (A–I) have been clearly labeled. In Figure 13, bundle sheath cells are now annotated with black square markers, and the parenchyma cells surrounding the vascular bundles are explicitly indicated. For consistency, this spatial relationship has also been clarified in Figure 3.
