British Naturalist Laura Roscoe Thornely (1860–1951), Taxonomist of Hydroids and Bryozoans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

With this biographic study, Dale R. Calder provides a better recognition of the underrated taxonomic studies of Laura R. Thornely on two challenging animal groups, the hydroids and bryozoans. Efforts have been made to unearth information about the life and work of this taxonomist, despite an obvious lack of available data. I recommend publication after the implementation of some minor corrections according to the suggestions inserted directly into the PDF file. Additionally, some taxonomic remarks (see below) should be taken into account.

Gonothyraea longicyatha – is assigned, with a query, to Obelia oxydentata Stechow, 1914, a nominal species whose type locality is in the Caribbean. Why should the last name have precedence over that introduced by Thornely? Thornely (1900: 455) regarded her hydroid as closer to Campanularia (?) spinulosa Bale, 1888 (N.B.: fascicled stems), with which it could be conspecific. However, the "faint longitudinal lines" observed by Bale in the hydrothecae were neither mentioned by Thornely (1900) in her account, nor by Watson (2003: 257; 2005: 584). Billard (1922: 1) assigned to Bale's hydroid material from Belgium that agree morphologically with Thornely's species, but which is, most probably, O. bidentata Clarke, 1875. There is record of this latter species from Fiji by Gibbons & Ryland (1989: 405), their material not differing much from that of Thornely, except for the monosiphonic condition of its stems. Leloup (1932: 155) assigned to O. spinulosa specimens from India, whose hydrothecae were provided by "lignes longitudinales de la paroi". When transferred to Obelia, Thornely' species becomes a junior secondary homonym of O. longicyatha Allman, 1877.

Sertularia fissa – is regarded as a species of Dynamena by Billard (1925: 192), due to the absence of an abaxial caecum.

Thuiaria palans – is likely a junior synonym of Dynamena crisioides (Lmx., 1824), and corresponds to f. gigantea Billard, 1925.

Lytocarpus plumosus – is likely a junior synonym of Lytocarpia delicatula (Busk, 1852).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

A PDF copy of the manuscript with referee comments and author replies, will be attached below.  Responses here address comments by Referee #1 on the following species:

Gonothyraea longicyatha: Given uncertainty over the synonymy of this species, it is perhaps best assigned to Obelia, where it most likely belongs (even Thornely herself thought that a possibility), and left as O. longicyatha (Thornely, 1900). As such, it will not be a homonym of O. longicyatha Allman, 1877 because Allman's species has now been referred to Clytia (see Calder 2019: 66), as Clytia longicyatha (Allman, 1877). Homonymy therefore no longer exists.

Gonothyraea longicyatha has been listed in Table 1 as questionably identical with Obelia oxydentata Stechow, 1914. a name that is in current use.  I should not have used the Stechow name without further explanation.  If the two names are indeed referable to the same species, Thornely's name would have priority. Meanwhile, considerable uncertainty remains over the identity of Campanularia (?) spinulosa Bale, 1888, and I do not believe Thornely's species can be confidently assigned to it at this point.  As for the supposedly cosmopolitan O. bidentata Clark, 1875, I have little doubt that a species complex exists under that name. I agree that the hydroid from cool waters of Belgium that Billard (1922) compared with Bale's species was likely O. bidentata, but surely not Thornely's from Papua New Guinea. Based on its type, my concept of O. bidentata is of a boreal speces with large, polysiphonic colonies that differ from the small, mostly monosiphonic warm to tropical species that has been incorrectly been given the same name by a number of authors including Gibbons & Ryland (1989). On the basis of biogeography, as well as differences in colony form, I cannot believe that a species inhabiting cool/cold waters of the North Atlantic (and with a type locality there, in New York state, USA) is the same as the one from the Caribbean Sea or from the tropical Indo-Pacific. I've seen unquestionable O. bidentata in the chilly Bay of Fundy, NW North Atlantic, and a case has been made (Calder 2017:42) that the small species from warm waters is distinct from it. Arguments have also been made to this effect the other way, under the name O. oxydentata (type locality U.S. Virgin Islands) for the warm water species, in other papers (Calder 2013: 59, 2019: 65, Calder et al. 2019: 38). Only truly convincing evidence from DNA analyses would change my mind that these hydroids are all conspecific. To me it seems possible, if not even likely, that the tropical Pacific populations are different genetically from those of the Caribbean and elsewhere in the Atlantic. All that said, as noted above, I agree with the referee that the name O. oxydentata should not be used.  I think it best to retain Thornely's name (as O. longicyatha) until relationships are much clearer.

Sertularia fissa: I had assigned this species to Tridentata in the table, but agree with the referee that it is better referred to Dynamena. WoRMS retains Sertularia fissa as the accepted name, but it clearly does not belong in the genus Sertularia.  This, the name has been changed in the table to Dynamena fissa.

Thuiaria palans: This species was assigned in the table to "Disertasia palens". A case is to be made in a forthcoming manuscript for recognition of Disertasia based mainly on molecular evidence, but this is not the right place to resurrect that name. The referee is also correct that the specific name should be spelled palans rather than palens. I likewise follow the referee by recognizing the name Dynamena crisioides for the species, following Billard (1925), and also Millard (1975), who did not recognize rhe varieties of Billard and others as distinct subspecies.

Lytocarpus plumosis: I believe the referee is correct in this identification. The name has been changed to ?Lytocarpia delicatula (Busk, 1852).

Thw review of the referee was very helpful and is greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Tables 1-2 show the list of species proposed by Laura Roscoe Thornely and the current name. However, in some cases, the current name in the manuscript does not match the one given according to Worms. In cases where such a discrepancy is observed, it is necessary to explain what sources the author of the manuscript was guided by when choosing a current name. There are some typos. For example, an incomprehensible bracket shape or an extra bracket: "Pachyrhynchia cupressina (Lamouroux, 1816}," "Clavactinia gallensis Thornely, 1904)" The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

Author Response

Referee #2 noted that the Methods section could be improved, although nothing specific was criticized or suggested. To address this criticism, a couple of additional sentences have been added to the section relative to the new taxa Thornely proposed.

The referee is correct that some of the binomena in Table 1 do not correspond with those adopted by WoRMS. Please note that names of Hydrozoa in WoRMS are sometimes dated, and in a considerable number of cases are known to be taxonomically and/or nomenclaturally incorrect.  It is an extremelty useful and important resource, but one should not blindly accept all is its taxonomic and nomenclatural opinions as being unimpeachably correct.

The referee is likewise correct that parentheses have been incorrectly entered for two species.  These have been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Thanks are extended to the referee for helpful comments and a positive review. 

Reviewer 3 Report

In past years, Dr. Dale Calder has been producing many papers reporting on the life and studies of different notable naturalists. In the current study Dr. Calder synthesizes the life and studies of Miss Laura R. Thornely. In my opinion the study presents a nice and due reverence to Laura’s efforts and deserve publication in “Taxonomy”.

My only suggestion is for the author to consider including the exact year of the first and last publications in the first paragraph of the introduction.

Author Response

Referee #3 suggested that the exact year of the first and last papers of Thornely be included in the first paragraph of the Introduction. That is a sound and helpful suggestion, and one that has been addressed in the Introduction of the revised manuscript.  However, the information has been inserted at the end of the second paragraph rather than the first, as it seemed to fit better there.

With thanks to the referee for a positive review.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a very interesting manuscript describing biography of merited but little known and recognized hydrozoan and bryozoan taxonomist Laura Thornely. I have no comments except of gratitude for recalling her name.

Author Response

Referee #4 offered no criticisms, but included a note of thanks for recognition of the work of Thornely.  In return, I thank the referee for the positive comment.

Reviewer 5 Report

The turn of the millenium came in 2000 or 2001, not 1900, that was just turn of century

I was asked to review this ms from the bryozoan taxonomy point of view. It is clear that there is not as much information on types and revised nomenclature for Thornely’s bryozoans as for her hydroids. But the author has contacted Mary Spencer Jones at NHM and has updated the taxonomy as much as possible based on digital resources. Phil Bock keeps Bryozoa.net quite current. The bryozoan collections at NHM and and the University of Cambridge Museum have not been completely digitized, so I don’t think more could be done now with the current situation regarding international travel. The most important point is that this paper gives us much, much more about Laura Thornely’s life and scientific contribution than we ever had. It is a great contribution to the taxonomic history of both groups. I hope that the author will consider more research on discovering the bryozoan types and perhaps even clarifying some of the doubtful species by working with Mary or someone else in UK, and that he will consider expanding the bryozoan portion of this work for the IBA’s “Annals of Bryozoology” historical series, but I don’t want to hold up publication of this paper—I strongly recommend acceptance. 

Author Response

The referee is correct that "turn of the millennium" in the Abstract should be "turn of the century". A correction has been made in the revised manuscript.

Moreover, the referee wished that more could be done to strengthen Table 2 on Bryozoa named by Thornely.  Additional information has been added, especially on existence of typs at the NHM. A few nomenclatural changes have been made as well based on recently received information.

With thanks to the referee for positive comments and criticisms. 

Reviewer 6 Report

The manuscript by Calder is a valuable original contribution to the knowledge of the British Naturalist Laura Roscoe Thornely, who studied hydroids and bryozoans from late 1880 to 1916. The text is well presented, with detailed data on her life and studies on both hydroids and bryozoans. Thus, the manuscript scope will make a good contribution to Taxonomy of both taxa.

There are some notes in the attached file, with minor corrections that need to be done in Table 1 (as bryozoan taxonomist, I can only improve the list on bryozoans), including application of synonyms of species originally described by Thornely. I also included some data on type material, that could be useful for the author to improve both table and the text with data on the material studied by Thornely.

I strongly recommend to include a new table (before Table 1, witha a summary of data) that will improve the text presented in topic 4 (Research in Natural History). This new table could include: date of publication, plust additional data on the taxa reported (e.g. locality, Museum were species are deposited, number of taxa recorded and new species described].

 

. Its wide geographic scope will make it an inescapable reference for studies dealing with biological invasions in Brazil and neighbouring regions. It deserves to be published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, after minor changes.

I attach a marked copy of the manuscript, where I have detailed many minor changes, mainly improvements to the English syntax, references cited in the text but not included in the reference list, and articles included in References but not cited in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments submitted by Referee #6 on a PDF copy of the manuscript are replied to in a copy of that file attached below. Those reviewer comments were very helpful indeed and are much appreciated.

I considered the suggestion of the referee about adding another table to Section 4 of the manuscript.  In my opinion, this would duplicate what is already summarized in the section. Collection localities aand numbers of species identified in each of Thormely's papers have been discussed in Section 4.  As well, each of her papers is cited here and listed with verified dates of publication, in the References section.  I tried to establish where type material is located, and with the help of this referee, the number of types of bryozoans known to be housed at the NHM has been much increased. I also tried to determine where Thornely's non-type collections from NW Europe might now be located, with minimal success. As implied by the referee, Thornely's early collections from there were likely destroyed at the museum of the University of Liverpool during WWII.  I found no evidence that they are at the NHM. A request was sent to the World Museum, National Museums of Liverpool, with not reply received yet, to determine if they are housed there.  It seems unlikely. Note that Tables 1 and 2 list all of Thornely's new species. All were from the Indo-Pacific, and none from her work in European waters. A sentence has been added to the manuscript noting that no new species were described by her from Europe. The fauna of the region was well-known even back then.

The referee significantly improved the quality of information in Table 2 by providing information on type material of Thornely's bryozoan species at the NHM, London. As well, some name changes were noted that update taxonomy and nomenclature. This was very helpful and is appreciated. No types of either Bryozoa or Hydrozoa are listed in the online catalogues of the Cambridge Musuem (UK). Collections at neither the Indian Museum (Kolkata = Calcutta) nor the National Museum of Ireland appear to be listed online.

I believe the last two paragraphs of the referee's review refer to the his/her review of another manuscript, as they are not relevant to the Thornely manuscript.

With thanks to the referee for very helpful corrections and suggestions. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf