The Axiidea in the Museum of Oceanography Petrônio Alves Coelho, Recife, Brazil, with Some Remarks on the Biology of the Species
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents data on specimens of Axiidea from the Museum of Oceanography Petrônio Alves Coelho, Recife, the data is interesting, but to make it even more interesting for readers I suggest adding a Distribution item to the list of species. Just suggestion. I found many formatting problems in the text and left it marked in the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
To: Prof. Dr. Aniya Wu,
Assistant Editor
MDPI-Taxonomy
CC: Dr. Harley Chen
Section Managing Editor
Ref.: Manuscript ID: taxonomy-2988390
Dears Dr. Wu and Dr. Chen,
Please, find attached the revised version of the manuscript ‘The Axiidea in the Museum of Oceanography Petrônio Alves Coelho, Recife; with some remarks on the biology of the species’.
I appreciate the very constructive and useful comments of the three anonymous reviewers. They have helped me to improve the manuscript substantially. This new version contains the comments done by the referees, including the correction of style, grammar, and contents. Also, I have added a second author, my colleague Dr. Jesser F. Souza-Filho, who give me a significant scientific supporting during the development of this study. I hope you feel satisfied with the current approach.
I have highlighted the changes/suggestions on the new version with a different color for each reviewer. They are as follows: reviewer 1 (green), reviewer 2 (yellow), and reviewer 3 (turquoise). Some small changes made by us on this new version were marked in gray. Also, I am sending attached a clean version for ease of use. I hope the new version be suitable for publication in Taxonomy (MDPI).
Yours sincerely,
Patricio Hernáez
Reviewer 1
General comment
The manuscript presents data on specimens of Axiidea from the Museum of Oceanography Petrônio Alves Coelho, Recife, the data is interesting, but to make it even more interesting for readers I suggest adding a Distribution item to the list of species. Just suggestion. I found many formatting problems in the text and left it marked in the attached PDF.
RE: I would like to thank the careful review provided by this reviewer on the manuscript. I have incorporated most of his/her suggestions, including the addition of information on species distribution for some taxon.
Specific comments
Results
Comment: lack of standardization whether or not there are blank lines between the genus name and the species name.
RE: Thank you for the feedback. In the original version submitted to the journal, the line spacing is present. I believe this is an issue that arises when the original version is uploaded to the platform during the submission process. For some reason, the journal platform does not maintain the original format submitted by authors during a submission.
Comment: some authors are in bold and others are not.
RE: Thanks for the advice. In the original version submitted to the journal, this citation is in bold (see my previous comment). Nevertheless, I have reviewed the entire document again to ensure it is appropriately formatted.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a simple list of museum material. It adds very little to the knowledge of the Axiidea of Brazil. I have made all my suggestions for improvement or corrections on the ms itself. There is some inconsistencies between the lists and remarks. And some errors of fact.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English is fine but I have made some changes or pronouns.
Author Response
To: Prof. Dr. Aniya Wu,
Assistant Editor
MDPI-Taxonomy
CC: Dr. Harley Chen
Section Managing Editor
Ref.: Manuscript ID: taxonomy-2988390
Dears Dr. Wu and Dr. Chen,
Please, find attached the revised version of the manuscript ‘The Axiidea in the Museum of Oceanography Petrônio Alves Coelho, Recife; with some remarks on the biology of the species’.
I appreciate the very constructive and useful comments of the three anonymous reviewers. They have helped me to improve the manuscript substantially. This new version contains the comments done by the referees, including the correction of style, grammar, and contents. Also, I have added a second author, my colleague Dr. Jesser F. Souza-Filho, who give me a significant scientific supporting during the development of this study. I hope you feel satisfied with the current approach.
I have highlighted the changes/suggestions on the new version with a different color for each reviewer. They are as follows: reviewer 1 (green), reviewer 2 (yellow), and reviewer 3 (turquoise). Some small changes made by us on this new version were marked in gray. Also, I am sending attached a clean version for ease of use. I hope the new version be suitable for publication in Taxonomy (MDPI).
Yours sincerely,
Patricio Hernáez
Reviewer 2
General comment
Comments to the Author
This is a simple list of museum material. It adds very little to the knowledge of the Axiidea of Brazil. I have made all my suggestions for improvement or corrections on the ms itself. There is some inconsistencies between the lists and remarks. And some errors of fact.
RE: Thank you for the overall feedback and for taking the time to review my paper. The reviewer is correct in pointing out that this article is simply a list of species deposited in a museum. This criticism is acceptable from a superficial perspective. However, understanding the overall context in which this collection is inserted in relation to other better-known collections from the World, this paper becomes an important contribution given the limited visibility that the MOUFPE collection has both nationally and internationally. In fact, this is the only zoological collection of marine specimens throughout the northeastern region of Brazil (spanning over 4000 km of coastline), and despite being the only one of its kind in the region, it is visited very infrequently by specialists in marine taxonomy. As a foreigner in Brazil, during the two years I have been working with this zoological collection, I am the only foreigner who has visited it during this time. For this reason, the dissemination of this collection through works like the one I am presenting to Taxonomy journal is of utmost importance in keeping this biological heritage alive. About the formatting errors pointed out by this referee, as I mentioned earlier in the response letter to referee 1, the original version does not contain these typographical errors. For some reason, the journal platform does not maintain the original format submitted by me during the article submission.
Specific comments
Introduction
Comment: many are deep sea (see bottom of page)
RE: I have included a short sentence as suggested by the referee.
Results
Axiopsis brasiliensis
Material
Comment: abbreviation for?
RE: Thanks for the advice. Materials and Methods' section, I have included the information requested by this referee.
Axiorygma nethertoni
Remarks
Comment: By whom? The description is adequate for identification..
RE: Thanks for the comment. Now, it reads ‘This specimen was assigned by Coelho (1997) to …….Florida’.
Calaxius spinosus
Material
Comment: This contradicts what is siad below. Coelho's paper states: "Holótipo. Exemplar coletado na estacilo GM 191, entre 82 e 94 metros de profundidade ao largo do Cabo do Norte, Amapá.".
RE: The reviewer is right. Sorry by the mistake.
Remarks
Comment: Coelho did not designate paratypes; they can't be designated subsequently.
RE: I understand the reviewer's comment. The issue is that both specimens are designated as paratypes on the labels of the material deposited in the MOUFPE collection. To avoid any confusion, I will follow the instructions of this referee and delete this information.
Coralaxius nodulosus
Comment: Cite: Pachelle, P.P.G., and Tavares, M. 2020. Axiidean ghost shrimps (Decapoda: Axiidae, Callianassidae, Callichiridae, Micheleidae) of the Trindade and Martin Vaz Archipelago, Vitória-Trindade Seamounts Chain and Abrolhos, off southeastern Brazil. Zootaxa 4758: 103-126. 10.11646/zootaxa.4758.1.4
because it explains the troubled history of this name. They reported on many specimens from Brazil.
RE: Thanks for the comment. I have included the sound discussion about the use of the name ‘Coralaxius nodulosus’ reported by Pachelle & Tavares (2020).
Cheramoides aff. marginata
Remarks
Comment: The remarks should cite: Biffar, T.A. 1971. The genus Callianassa (Crustacea, Decapoda, Thalassinidea) in south Florida, with keys to the Western Atlantic species. Bulletin of Marine Science 21: 637-715. who illustrated the species from close to the type locality. And point out the differences between the Brazilian and Puerto Rican specimens. A figure of the tail fan would be helpful.
RE: A colleague and I recently submitted an article aiming to differentiate the populations of Cheramoides in Brazil from C. marginata. In that article, we extensively discussed the morphological differences that distinguish both populations of Cheramoides. Therefore, I prefer not to include further details in the present review until I have received the referees' opinions on that other article.
Corallianassa hartmeyeri
Remarks
Comment: ADD AND EXPLAIN THIS REFERENCE: Manning, R.B. 1988. The status of Callianassa hartmeyeri Schmitt, 1935, with the description of Corallianassa xutha from the west coast of America (Crustacea, Decapoda, Thalassinidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 101: 883-889.
RE: Thanks for the suggestion. I have added a brief discussion on the species source, their issues and implications, and a brief comparison between specimen from Brazil and information available in literature on the holotype of C. hartmeyeri as suggested by the referee.
Dawsonius latispinus
Remarks
Comment: Dawsonius is a monotypic genus so there are no cogeners. The species was described in the then huge genus Callianassa.
RE: The reviewer is right. Sorry by the mistake.
Marcusiaxius lemoscastroi
Comment: Rodrigues and de Carvalho.
RE: Respectfully, the reviewer is mistaken. The correct citation is from Carvalho & Rodrigues, 1972, not the other way around. I suspect the reviewer's error stems from the information provided in WoRMS about this species. This information is also incorrect, as the original article shows that the first author of this work is Helci Ana de Carvalho, with Sergio de Almeida Rodrigues being the second author.
Remarks
Comment: Not true. According the later paper (de Carvalho, H.A., and Rodrigues, S.d.A. 1973. Marcusiaxius lemoscastroi, g. n., sp. n., nova occurrência da família Axiidae (Crustacea, Decápoda, Thalassinidea) no Brasil. Boletim do Zoologia e Biologia Marina, São Paulo, n.s. 30: 553-566.) the holotype is "conservado no Instituto de Biologia da Universidade Federal da Bahia."
RE: Thanks for the comment. I have corrected this error.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript by Patricio Hernaez provides a comprehensive review of holdings of the MOUFPE collections of axiidean ghost shrimp. These reports are valuable to scientists who are working on these groups and I wish there were more of these reports published.
I have a few comments which I highlight in the attached document (pdf opened in Word and track change function used).
The various species could be presented in a more consistent manner, e.g. I am missing comments on sex and size in some of the Materials section; it might be useful to add some more consistent comment on the diagnostic characteristics of each species, if not in a Diagnosis section, then adding comments in the Remarks (as you have e.g done for the Neocallichirus species), and a couple of times I have gone and checked a wider distribution of a species. These comments would also make the manuscript more rounded.
The author makes comments about database records, but it would be good for a reader to see a comment about who provided the authoritative ID, in some cases this could have been PA Coelho or the author, and would add confidence in these records. Or adding some remarks from the author that the specimens match (or differ from) the description of the species.
I am glad to see illustrations of species, these records are always useful.
I am trying to think of a way to improve the utility of Table 1. A list of the species is useful visually, but I am not sure about the reference provided. Is it the most recent reference of a Brazil record? Then there might be more, I think this could be usefully added to a synonymy section for each species. Perhaps add a summary of depth or global distribution instead? These references would have been provided under each species and this might be duplication? Highlighting those species that are endemic versus occurring more widely would be useful here.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The manuscript reads well and the English is eloquent. There are a few small editorial and grammatical comments in an annotated copy attached.
Author Response
To: Prof. Dr. Aniya Wu,
Assistant Editor
MDPI-Taxonomy
CC: Dr. Harley Chen
Section Managing Editor
Ref.: Manuscript ID: taxonomy-2988390
Dears Dr. Wu and Dr. Chen,
Please, find attached the revised version of the manuscript ‘The Axiidea in the Museum of Oceanography Petrônio Alves Coelho, Recife; with some remarks on the biology of the species’.
I appreciate the very constructive and useful comments of the three anonymous reviewers. They have helped me to improve the manuscript substantially. This new version contains the comments done by the referees, including the correction of style, grammar, and contents. Also, I have added a second author, my colleague Dr. Jesser F. Souza-Filho, who give me a significant scientific supporting during the development of this study. I hope you feel satisfied with the current approach.
I have highlighted the changes/suggestions on the new version with a different color for each reviewer. They are as follows: reviewer 1 (green), reviewer 2 (yellow), and reviewer 3 (turquoise). Some small changes made by us on this new version were marked in gray. Also, I am sending attached a clean version for ease of use. I hope the new version be suitable for publication in Taxonomy (MDPI).
Yours sincerely,
Patricio Hernáez
Reviewer 3
General comment
Comments to the Author
The manuscript by Patricio Hernaez provides a comprehensive review of holdings of the MOUFPE collections of axiidean ghost shrimp. These reports are valuable to scientists who are working on these groups and I wish there were more of these reports published.
I have a few comments which I highlight in the attached document (pdf opened in Word and track change function used).
The various species could be presented in a more consistent manner, e.g. I am missing comments on sex and size in some of the Materials section; it might be useful to add some more consistent comment on the diagnostic characteristics of each species, if not in a Diagnosis section, then adding comments in the Remarks (as you have e.g done for the Neocallichirus species), and a couple of times I have gone and checked a wider distribution of a species. These comments would also make the manuscript more rounded.
The author makes comments about database records, but it would be good for a reader to see a comment about who provided the authoritative ID, in some cases this could have been PA Coelho or the author, and would add confidence in these records. Or adding some remarks from the author that the specimens match (or differ from) the description of the species.
I am glad to see illustrations of species, these records are always useful.
I am trying to think of a way to improve the utility of Table 1. A list of the species is useful visually, but I am not sure about the reference provided. Is it the most recent reference of a Brazil record? Then there might be more, I think this could be usefully added to a synonymy section for each species. Perhaps add a summary of depth or global distribution instead? These references would have been provided under each species and this might be duplication? Highlighting those species that are endemic versus occurring more widely would be useful here.
RE: I am grateful for the comments and suggestions made by this reviewer to improve the document. In the new version, I have included most of their comments, which have been appropriately highlighted in turquoise.
Specific comments
Introduction
Comment: I would replace this reference with the more recent Poore, G.C.B., Ahyong, S.T. (2023) Marine Decapod Crustacea - A Guide to Families and Genera of the World. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton South, Australia: 916.
RE: done.
Results
Axiopsis brasiliensis
Remarks
Comment: Without a synonymies section I feel it would be useful to guide the reader more explicitly to places where we can find information about their comparative morphology, how to identify these species? Does Melo (1999, ref 13) give keys or illustrations for this purpose? Also, state that the species remains taxonomically accepted at presented, ie you don’t accept Sakai’s hypothesis.
RE: I have added a brief sentence between lines 65-67 clarifying the current taxonomic status of each species listed in the present document.
Calaxius spinosus
Material
Comment: You state below that the holotype is deposited elsewhere, this should be ‘paratype’?
RE: The reviewer is right. Sorry by the mistake. This specimen is a paratype of C. spinosus.
Remarks
Comment: Could you comment on whether this still appears to be the only collections for this species? Their distribution remains very limited?
RE: Thanks for the suggestion. I have added information about distribution of this species as suggested by the referee.
Coralaxius nodulosus
Remarks
Comment: According to WoRMS, its distribution does covers the Caribbean and various locations off Brazil. As a reader, I would appreciate a comment on its known distribution or some comment on the morphological characteristics that diagnose this specimen/species (similar to what has been presented for e.g. Manaxius angulatus below).
RE: Thanks for the comment. I have added some details about distribution of this species, including aspects relative to the morphology of this species.
Paraxiopsis vicina
Remarks
Comment: This format works well for me, comment on distribution and how to identify it.
RE: Thanks for the comment.
Figure 1: Would it be possible to add the telson and uropods in this figure?
RE: I have modified the figure as suggested by the referee.
- 229-235. Nevertheless, could you comment on the material in the collection and how similar it is to C. marginata s.s.? You present Paraxiopsis defensus above from Puerto Rico without these comments.
RE: Thank you for the suggestion. I have modified the ‘remarks’ section of P. defensus and added comment on the morphology of Brazilian specimens of C. marginata as suggested by the referee.
Callichirus corruptus
Remarks
Comment: Do both species co-occur (looks like it according to WORMS/OBIS) or are the species geographically separated?
RE: Done.
Lepidophthalmus siriboia
Remarks
Comment: Please rephrase, I am not sure what character this refers to here.
RE: I have included a new reference to support this argument.
Neocallichirus aff. grandimana
Remarks
Comment: Could you be clear that these were ‘authoritatively’ identified in the collection (i.e. add a name)?
RE: Done.
Comment: Could you comment on how one can differentiate between the four Neocallichirus species you list here, like you do below for some other species, or point to the best reference – Sakai 2011?
RE: Done.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
