Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research is to identify gaps in descriptions of Neotropical species of Trogolaphysa and facilitate the identification of newly collected forms.  Subterranean Trogolaphysa are of general evolutionary interest because many species exhibit morphological adaptations to hypogean life. Then the manuscript is very important in taxonomical and evolutionary sense sense. Besides that, the topic is original or relevant in the field of biogeography and it addresses some gaps in the field of taxonomy. The research focuses on subterranean habitats that are vulnerable to many impacts, providing valuable insights into the taxonomy of Collembola. The research adds value to the subject area by introducing an Identification key to Neotropical species of Trogolaphysa.  The references are all appropriate, but cave names need to be improved a lot. I´m sending the manuscript with a few yellow marks meaning that the sentences need to be corrected  The figures and tables are both OK.

My best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Almost all changes requested by reviewers have been implemented. The suggestions we did not implement were:
1. We did not add authority references and distributions after the name of the species in the key because with think that would make the couplet look too clustered.
2. We did not change the order of the figures, or their label because at this stage it would create too much confusion in a manuscript of this size. But more important, we organized figures hoping to save space while keeping together structures that are contrasted to each other in the narrative, 

The major changes we included, as suggested by the reviewers are:

1. We have included all the caves names and coordinates for all the caves and surface localities that can be identified. We have included a short paragraph at the end of section 2.4 explaining what to expect from the coordinates included for cave locations.

2. We provide database (Taxonworks) accession numbers for all types for the new species.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Trogolaphysa is one of the least known genera of Collembola. The authors provide a comprehensive work on the species having less than 6+6 eyes, including revisions of formerly described species and detailed and accurate descriptions of two new species, enriched with high quality photos and drawings, comparative tables of their main diagnostic features, including the essential macrochaetotaxy. An identification key to all Neotropical species of the genus with 0-5 eyes also provided.

Congratulations to the authors for this very important contribution to the knowledge of the genus.

A few minor notes are presented below:

Line 109-110 – marcochaetae ?

Line 185 – specify the abbreviation resolution of NEU

Line 231-235 ­ the species names are not italicized

Line 277 – two forms or two species?

Line 356-357 – not acuminate? please check

Line 394 – new paragraph from Remarks

Line 734-737, also Line 944-947 - are there any codes (slide numbers etc.) of the type material deposited?

Author Response

Almost all changes requested by reviewers have been implemented. The suggestions we did not implement were:
1. We did not add authority references and distributions after the name of the species in the key because with think that would make the couplet look too clustered.
2. We did not change the order of the figures, or their label because at this stage it would create too much confusion in a manuscript of this size. But more important, we organized figures hoping to save space while keeping together structures that are contrasted to each other in the narrative, 

The major changes we included, as suggested by the reviewers are:

1. We have included all the caves names and coordinates for all the caves and surface localities that can be identified. We have included a short paragraph at the end of section 2.4 explaining what to expect from the coordinates included for cave locations.

2. We provide database (Taxonworks) accession numbers for all types for the new species.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is an important revision of a part of the genus Trogolaphysa, mainly troglobiont representatives with reduced number of eyes, including description of two new species.

Remarks are provided along the text of manuscript. It is desirable for the authors to once again carefully read the manuscript in order to avoid possible errors that may not be noticed by the reviewer.

After all the necessary corrections, this valuable manuscript is recommended for publication in the journal Taxonomy.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Almost all changes requested by reviewers have been implemented. The suggestions we did not implement were:
1. We did not add authority references and distributions after the name of the species in the key because with think that would make the couplet look too clustered.
2. We did not change the order of the figures, or their label because at this stage it would create too much confusion in a manuscript of this size. But more important, we organized figures hoping to save space while keeping together structures that are contrasted to each other in the narrative, 

The major changes we included, as suggested by the reviewers are:

1. We have included all the caves names and coordinates for all the caves and surface localities that can be identified. We have included a short paragraph at the end of section 2.4 explaining what to expect from the coordinates included for cave locations.

2. We provide database (Taxonworks) accession numbers for all types for the new species.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made an excellent review of the manuscript, which is now ready to be published in the Taxonomy journal.