Description of Stolephorus horizon n. sp. from Fiji and Tonga, and redescription of Stolephorus scitulus (Fowler, 1911) (Teleostei: Clupeiformes: Engraulidae)^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This MS sounds good and I have some technical suggestions only. It is not required a subsequent reconsideration after its revision by the authors.

Line 23 and subsequent parts of text: Actually, the publication of Whitehead et al. (1988) was not a taxonomic revision in its common sense.

Figure 1: I suggest to indicate in the caption clearly that this figure explains the diagnostic characters of the Stolephorus indicus-complex. “Pairs of dark patches” are not clearly seen in the present picture, I suggest adding a close-up picture of the head in the dorsal view. Absence of the dark lines on the dorsum: I suggest to figure the opposed condition, as dark margins of the scale pockets (e.g., Fig. 2D) can be easily misidentified as “dark lines” by users.

Figs. 7 and 8: captions were jumbled.

Figs. 13 and 14: Just in case: it is hard to see a color difference between the “orange” and “yellow” symbols.

Line 401: French Polynesia includes a number of island groups but before (line 158) the authors stated that S. scitulus is known from off Tahiti only.

Finally, many measurements treated as diagnostic for the various species within the complex overlap in a various degree and the means are also often not fairly different (e.g., 5.1 vs. 5.3, 34.7 vs. 33.2, 8.9 vs. 7.6 etc). Thus, a multivariate analysis will be useful for supporting the separation of certain species. This is not a necessary requirement for the present paper as the new species is well defined by some qualitative characters (pigmentation of the pectoral fin) and meristics, but it is welcomed.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

This MS sounds good and I have some technical suggestions only. It is not required a subsequent reconsideration after its revision by the authors.

Thank you so much for reviewing and giving valuable comments. We revised the manuscript based on your comments.

 

Line 23 and subsequent parts of text: Actually, the publication of Whitehead et al. (1988) was not a taxonomic revision in its common sense.

Although there are many points to be corrected, Whitehead et al. (1988) is sole comprehensive research on this genus and currently used for identification of the genus. Therefore, Whitehead et al. (1988) should be treated as review of the genus in this introduction.

 

Figure 1: I suggest to indicate in the caption clearly that this figure explains the diagnostic characters of the Stolephorus indicus-complex. “Pairs of dark patches” are not clearly seen in the present picture, I suggest adding a close-up picture of the head in the dorsal view. Absence of the dark lines on the dorsum: I suggest to figure the opposed condition, as dark margins of the scale pockets (e.g., Fig. 2D) can be easily misidentified as “dark lines” by users.

Thank you for suggestion. “Diagnostic characters of Stolephorus indicus Group.” is added in the caption of Fig. 1. Pictures of close-up head dorsal and species with lines on dorsum are added.

 

Figs. 7 and 8: captions were jumbled.

Thank you for pointing out. These figures are replaced correctly.

 

Figs. 13 and 14: Just in case: it is hard to see a color difference between the “orange” and “yellow” symbols.

Thank you for pointing out, but, orange symbols and yellow symbols do not appear on the same figure. Therefore, we did not revise Figs. 13 and 14.

 

Line 401: French Polynesia includes a number of island groups but before (line 158) the authors stated that S. scitulus is known from off Tahiti only.

Thank you for pointing out. Most specimens collected from Tahiti, but some specimens were collected from Moorea Island (just west of Tahiti), therefore, the distributional area of S. scitulus is changed from French Polynesia to Society Islands.

 

Finally, many measurements treated as diagnostic for the various species within the complex overlap in a various degree and the means are also often not fairly different (e.g., 5.1 vs. 5.3, 34.7 vs. 33.2, 8.9 vs. 7.6 etc). Thus, a multivariate analysis will be useful for supporting the separation of certain species. This is not a necessary requirement for the present paper as the new species is well defined by some qualitative characters (pigmentation of the pectoral fin) and meristics, but it is welcomed.

Thank you for suggesting. Even in measurements with wide duplication of numerical values and approximate mean values, changes due to growth body sizes are considered useful for identification. In this study, because S. scitulus and S. horizon are considered to be able to separated from all other congeners by several characters, a multivariate analysis is not done.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an important contribution to the known diversity of anchovies and should be published. Only a few changes are necessary, indicated in attachment.  I congratulate the authors for the good job made. 

This is a signed review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

1. 364: bait fish

We revised it.

 

1. 367: ictalyze, as corresponds to a latin term.

Thank you for suggesting, but in this journal, only scientific names are indicated in italicize, therefore, other Latin words such as “et al.”, “e.g.”, and “vs.” are not italicized. We did not italicize this “bona fide”

 

1. 454: global

This word is correct. The word “glocal” is frequently used in Japanese education, it is compound word of “global” + “local”.

 

1. 457: collecting license number missing

The specimens used in this study were collected in the old and found in old museum collections, therefore, collecting license number is unavailable.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is fine and worthy of publishing from the journal. I checked some minor editorial errors in the text.  Because Hata et al. (2023) is in press now. Please publish this paper after Hata et al. (2023) published.

Please exchange the captions of Figs. 7 and 8.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

The paper is fine and worthy of publishing from the journal. I checked some minor editorial errors in the text.  Because Hata et al. (2023) is in press now. Please publish this paper after Hata et al. (2023) published.

Please exchange the captions of Figs. 7 and 8.

Thank you for careful reviewing. We corrected the manuscript following your comments. Figs. 7 and 8 are replaced correctly. Hata et al. (2023) was published on Apr.13th. This manuscript reflects contents of that paper.

 

1. 28: gill rakers on lower limb of first arch (1LGR)

This part is revised as you suggested.

 

1. 34, 162: The paper of the original discription is not published on-line yet.

This manuscript was published on April 13th.

 

1. 35: change to period

It is revised to period.

 

1. 44: and

It is corrected.

 

1. 52: Lateral

It is corrected.

 

1. 86: delete this redundant (A)

Thank you for pointing out. The first (A) is deleted.

 

1. 194: delete (A)

This (A) is deleted.

 

1. 215, 218: replace the captions of Figs. 7 and 8

Thank you for pointing out. These figures are replaced correctly.

 

1. 508: delete "&"

It is deleted.

 

1. 522: The authors should add the publication data and DOI before publishing this paper.

It was published on April 13th. The publication volume, pages, and DOI are added.

 

1. 525: insert comma

Comma is added.

 

1. 532: replace semi-colon

It is corrected.

 

1. 533: delete "(1926)"

It is deleted.

 

1. 550: semicolon

It is corrected.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is well written and can be accepted in the present form. This will be a great addition in understanding the often misidentified species group of Stolephorus.

Author Response

REVIEWER 4

The manuscript is well written and can be accepted in the present form. This will be a great addition in understanding the often misidentified species group of Stolephorus.

Thank you for giving a comment and acknowledging the value of this manuscript.

Reviewer 5 Report

This is an excellent paper, dealing with a group of very challenging fishes taxonomically. The authors have been systematically working through the genus and clearly differentiating species.

Aside from some suggestions as to changes to some of the text, I only found three issues:

1) Lines 191-192; there seems to be a line missing.

2) Figures 7 & 8 have had their legends reversed. Check to ensure what is cited in the text then reconciles.

3) The authors use the descriptor 'rather' a lot, especially in the description of S. horizon. This should be deleted as it doesn't add anything to the descriptions. The values can speak for themselves; the body is deep (16.4-16.8%...) etc. I have marked up where these appear.

I also found a few numerical values that didn't match the tables, but nothing major; these are annotated in the attached copy.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 5

This is an excellent paper, dealing with a group of very challenging fishes taxonomically. The authors have been systematically working through the genus and clearly differentiating species.

Aside from some suggestions as to changes to some of the text, I only found three issues:

1) Lines 191-192; there seems to be a line missing.

Sorry, this part is entirely deleted.

 

2) Figures 7 & 8 have had their legends reversed. Check to ensure what is cited in the text then reconciles.

Thank you for pointing out. These figures are replaced correctly.

 

3) The authors use the descriptor 'rather' a lot, especially in the description of S. horizon. This should be deleted as it doesn't add anything to the descriptions. The values can speak for themselves; the body is deep (16.4-16.8%...) etc. I have marked up where these appear.

I also found a few numerical values that didn't match the tables, but nothing major; these are annotated in the attached copy.

We really appreciate for your careful reviewing. “rather” in the manuscript are deleted. Incorrect values are corrected.

 

1. 30: Reference [11], [12] or [13]?

It refers [19], the number is added.

 

1. 42: Would you consider these species should be categorized as the indicus-group?

Thank you for suggestion, the seven species are categorized as S. indicus Group and explanation of the group is added in Materials & Methods.

 

1. 61: According to the Legend for Figure 1, B is the holotype of S. horizon

We are sorry, it is incorrect, “1B, ” is deleted.

 

1. 65: Here you record 'in error', in the Legend for Figure 2 its 'locality unknown', and line 76 'probable locality error'. These are slightly differing levels of uncertainty; recommend you use just one.

Thank you for suggesting. In L. 76, it is changed from “probable locality error” to “in error”. But, in the caption of Fig. 2, we did not change because we would like to stress that the collection locality of the holotype is unknown due to the erroneous.

 

1. 99, 101, 102, 103: text “rather” highlighted

These “rather” are deleted.

1. 117: Statements like this are relative and not a lot of value. It only works when doing direct comparisons between specimens, so delete.

Thank you for pointing out. We deleted it.

 

1. 105: distance

It is revised following your suggestion.

 

45. 105: 45.2

Thank you for pointing out, the value is corrected.

 

1. 117: Statements like this are relative and not a lot of value. It only works when doing direct comparisons between specimens, so delete.

Thank you for pointing out, we deleted it.

 

Table 2: Origins

Explanations for the abbreviations shown in Table 2 are added in the caption of the table.

 

1. 150: tan

It is added.

 

1. 158: ? around

The collection sites of S. scitulus include Tahiti, Moorea, and Society Islands (precise locality unknown). So, this sentence is changed as “Stolephorus scitulus is currently known only from Society Islands (Fig. 4).”

 

1. 164: reverse order

The order is changed.

 

1. 165: 28 is the upper limit so either < 29 or less than or equal to 28

Thank you for pointing out, it is corrected as “< 29”.

 

1. 167: delete “in the latter”

It is deleted.

 

1. 169: mean

It is added.

 

1. 169: insert values?

The values are added.

 

1. 170: 11% in Table 2

Sorry, “11%” in Table 2 was incorrect. It is corrected as “10.0%”.

 

1. 183: length

It is revised as “length”.

 

1. 191: Something missing here

Sorry, this part is entirely deleted.

 

1. 194: Do you want to somehow mark the Holotype locality as different to the others?

The figure is not changed because we did not think it was necessary.

 

1. 205: it

Thank you for suggestion, but in this sentence, two names, S. scitulus and S. indicus appear. To avoid confusion, we did not change this sentence.

 

1. 207: described herein

It is revised as you suggested.

 

1. 211: Sentence difficult to reconcile with previous statement. How about '..Hata et al (2021) [19] relegated Stolephorus insularum (described from French Polynesia) to synonymy as Stolephorus scitulus is now known to be restricted to waters around Tahiti.

The result that Stolephorus insularum = S. scitulus is obtained in this study, not only by Hata et al. (2021), so, this sentence is not changed.

 

8. 215: Legend has been swapped with Figure 8. Check tee text to make sure it reconciles.

Thank you for pointing out. These figures are replaced correctly.

 

1. 230: insert “4”

Thank you for suggestion, but Fig. 4 is just a map, not photo of S. horizon. Therefore, Fig. 4 is not added in this.

 

1. 230: 1

These numbers are corrected.

 

8. 263: 8.7%
9. 265: 20.1%

Sorry, we corrected these values.

 

1. 267: Statements like 'rather' are meaningless - strongly recommend delete!. Also you don't need to say 'short', you cite the value, let that stand as it is.

Thank you for pointing out, “rather”, “short”, “long”, “deep”, “slender” in Diagnosis section of S. scitulus and S. horizon are deleted.

 

1. 267: length

It is revised.

 

1. 269: (Fig. 1C)

Thank you for suggestion, but Fig. 1C is S. balinensis, not S. horizon. So, “Fig. 11B” (Dorsum of S. horizon) is added.

 

1. 270: (Fig. 3B)

Thank you for suggestion, it is added.

 

1. 272: “,”, “(” “)”

We did not change this part because we think that no change is necessary.

 

1. 283: More slender than what? Only useful if doing direct comparisons.

Changed as “elongated”

 

1. 286: Give a value. 'Large' by itself is not helpful.

Eye diameter in head length is shown in Table 2. So, “large” in this section is deleted.

 

1. 308: tan

It is added.

 

1. 316: ? around

Thank you for suggestion, “around” is added.

 

1. 367: As

It is revised as you suggested.

 

1. 402, 423: delete “rather”

We deleted them.