Brevinasia, a New Genus of Edaphic Weevils with Description of 13 New Species from South Africa (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae)^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper by Borovec and Meregalli is another typically high-quality output from their work on the South African Entiminae. They describe a new genus, *Brevinasia*, and revise all 14 species within the genus, 13 of which are described here for the first time. The descriptions read well and they are accompanied by high-quality and useful illustrations. Although I do not have any material on hand to test their key on actual specimens, it is readily understandable when applying it to the illustrations provided by the authors. I commend the authors on a job well done.

 

The maps are very useful for giving an indication of the distribution of each species, especially for those of us who are unfamiliar with South African geography. The authors need to note that 1) the maps don't work well in greyscale (probably not too big a problem, given that most people will engage with it as a PDF, but worth keeping in mind); 2) that that the point for *B. leleupi* in Figure 1 is not easy to locate for a red/green colour-blind person; 3) that some of the points in Figure 2 are difficult to reconcile between the map and the key (e.g. *B. limpopoensis*, *B. maior*, *B. micros*) because the colours of the points seem to differ; and 4) I can't seem to locate *B. nigritarsis* on Figure 2 at all (careful examination of the materials section reveal that the points on the Cape Peninsula that I had thought were the colour for *B. longiseta* should actually apply to *B. nigritarsis*). In addition, in the text we learn that some localities for certain species (e.g. *B. longiseta*, *B. brevicollis*, *B. inconspicua* and *B. litoralis*) have not been plotted. I recommend that the authors plot the full distribution of each species.

 

In the 'Remarks' on page 5, the authors reference their previous (2021) phylogenetic work establishing the Namaini, which included some specimens of *Brevinasia*. I recommend that the authors add a statement somewhere in this section along the lines of "*Brevinasia* was included in the phylogeny of Meregalli et al (2021), represented by two species--- *B. brevicollis* (labelled in the phylogeny as *"Trachyphloeosoma" brevicolle*) and *B. wanati* (labelled in the phylogeny as 'sp. "Wanat"')". A similar statement in the species accounts of both species would also be good to connect them with the phylogeny. It would also be good to mention here whether the three other taxa included in that clade of Meregalli et al 2021, Figure 1 ("583", "642" and "481" are *Brevinasia* and, if so, what species corresponds to what number. I assume that *B. nigritarsis* is likely included in this as well, given the section in the species account that is a place holder for a GenBank number.

 

In this section too, the authors describe the ways in which *Brevinasia* resemble the taxa in the Namaini; but then they "prefer not to expand the tribe". This is reasonable, but it would be helpful to explicitly state what characters differ between *Brevinasia* and the Namaini which make the authors reluctant to place it within the tribe.

 

Regarding the name "brevicollis", with the placement of *Trachyphloeosoma brevicolle* into the feminine genus *Brevinasia*, the authors have generally tended to use the differently-declined word "brevicollis" in most instances. To the extent that my sourcebooks and understanding of Latin grammar indicate, I agree with this change. Given this, however, the authors need to correct "Brevinasia brevicolle (Voss) in the key (page 46). They also need to correct the captions for Figures 16, 17 and 18, where this is rendered as 'brevipennis'.

 

Regarding the name "maior": Be aware that this spelling has the potential for  confusion by being readily misspelled as 'major'.

 

In some of the images of the pronotum (e.g. *B. wanati*, Figure 15c) the protuberances are difficult to see against the legs behind it. Consider adding line drawings for those taxa with particularly diagnostic protuberances, especially if they are mentioned in the key.

 

Please go through the captions for Figures 16, 17 and 18 carefully to ensure that the names are consistent with the text. In figure 17 we have 'longipennis' (=*B. longiseta*?), 'rotundula' (= *B. rotundipennis*?), 'brevipennis' (=*B. brevicollis*?). All names should be italicised. I also prefer having the figure part before the description (e.g. "Outline of penis of: (a) Brevinasia brevicollis; ....") instead of afterwards as the authors have used.

 

I recommend that one of the spermathecae in Figure 17 (Figure 17(a), perhaps) be annotated to make clear what parts are the ramus, collum, cornu and corpus to make understanding the key, descriptions and figures easier for those readers who aren't familiar with these terms.

 

Please consider also illustrating the gonocoxites of *B. bulirschi*, *B. nigritarsis* and *B. inconspicua*, as these structures are mentioned in the key as being diagnostic for these species. 

 

 

Abstract, last line: Change "00'E) B. wanati" to "00'E); B. wanati" (add semicolon)

 

Introduction, last line: Change "13 of which new" to "13 of which are new"

 

Material and methods, paragraph 1: "the molecular analyses were performed"---no results of any molecular analyses are discussed in the paper, except for the references to the previously-published results of the authors. This part of this sentence can be deleted.

Material and methods, paragraph 2: Change "no kno    wledge of the phylogenetic" to "no knowledge of the phylogenetic" (Delete the weird space that has appeared in the middle of "knowledge"

 

Page 5, Brevinasia genus account, remarks, last paragraph, line 4: Change: "Florida), the Hawaii and the Island St Helena in the Atlantic" to ""Florida), Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean and St Helena in the Atlantic"

 

Page 5, Brevinasia genus account, remarks, last paragraph, line 7: Change: "canbe" to "can be"

 

Page 6, B. brevicollis species account, Additional material examined, last lines: "Specimens from KwaZulu Natal are apparently introduced from Western Cape"---Some additional information here as to whether these records are labeling errors, transient introductions, or if they're established populations would be helpful. If the last is true, and the authors believe there is a population alive and being maintained in KwaZulu Natal, I recommend they add this locality to the distribution map.

 

Page 9, B. brevicollis species account, Description, paragraph 1, lines 2--3: Change "nodulus" to "collum" for consistency with other descriptions of the spermatheca.

 

Page 12, B. albonigra species account, Biology. "grassnetting" and "groundtraps"---if the authors know a little more detail about these methods that Endrody-Younga used, it would be good to add some information either here or in the materials and methods. Or if this is sweep-netting grasses or using pitfall traps respectively (terms which I think are more widely known), you could add this clarification here.

 

Page 15, B. bulirschi species account, differential diagnosis, last lines: Italicise 'B. bulirschi' and 'B. litoralis'.

 

Page 15, B. inconspicua species account, Description, paragraph 1, line 6: Change "identical as setae" to "identical to setae".

 

Page 20, B. leleupi species account, Description, paragraph 6, lines 3--4: Change "Onychium from as long as to 1.1x as long as above tarsal segment" to "Onychium from 1 to 1.1x as long as segment 3".

 

Page 22, B. limpopoensis species account, heading: Italicise "Brevinasia limpopoensis"

 

Page 24, B. litoralis species account, description. In most other species accounts, comparative lengths are given using the symbol '×', whereas here the word 'times' is used extensively. I recommend changing all relevant instances to '×' for consistency.

 

Page 35, B. nigritarsis species account, heading: Italicise "Brevinasia nigritarsis"

 

Page 38, B. rotundipennis species account, Description, paragraph 3: "Onychium short, 0.9× as long as segment 2" Please check if this is correct, or if it should be 'segment 3' as in other descriptions

 

Page 42, Key to species, Couplet 4, first alternative: Change "Bigger" to "Larger"

 

Page 42, Key to species, Couplet 4: The last character used differs between the two alternatives (comparison of onychium with segment 3 in the first alternative; length/width ratio of onychium in second). Additionally, these alternatives (long/short) is contradicted by a later couplet (couplet 8), where the same choices have to be made. From the illustrations, it seems that *B. maior* is pretty distinctive and the dominant characters included as the first two characters, so I recommend deleting the onychium character from this couplet.

 

Page 43, Figure 16, caption, line 3: Change "Brevinasia brevicollis. Bar:"to "Brevinasia brevicollis (b). Bar:"

 

Page 42, Key to species, Couplet 6, first alternative: "Rostrum at basal part distinctly widened" This character is hard to see in Figure 14, and is difficult to imagine how this might differ from the rostrum being "tapered anteriad". Consider re-wording this sentence.

 

Page 44, Key to species, Couplet 7, first alternative: "Plate of female sternite VIII semicircular". I believe that "subrectangular" describes Figure 18(f) better.

 

Page 45, Key to species, Couplet 9, second alternative: Change "Pronotum slenderer" to "Pronotum less wide". The mental image that comes to me when thinking of a "slenderer" pronotum is not that shown in Figure 5.

 

Page 46, Key to species, Couplet 11, second alternative: "Ventral margin of scrobe directed below eye". This character is difficult to see in Figure 6(h--j). Consider modifying these figures to highlight this feature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your very useful comments.

Going to your specifical questions:

MAPS: Symbols have been modified to avoid uncertain localization.

REMARKS ON PHYLOGENY. The entire chapter has been rewritten and the discussion made more clear and complete.

"In a previous COI-based phylogenetic analysis [1], three of the species that are included in Brevinasia clustered in a sister clade to Namaini [1, figure 1, species 481, sp. “Wanat” and “Trachyphloeosoma” brevicolle]. Actually, two more species were part of the same clade: species 583, whose placement was not supported (36% posterior probability), and species 642, fully supported, but with a very long branch. Morphologically, however, these two species show strong differences from all other species described here as Brevinasia, although they have free claws and therefore are definitely related. In a morphology-based phylogenetic analysis (unpublished), both taxa clustered in clades different from all Brevinasia species, the clade of which had a 98% post probability support. Conflicting morphological and molecular phylogenies are a fairly common finding [3], but the monophyly of Brevinasia, as suggested by the morphological analysis, is better preserved if the last two species are excluded from the new genus. Regarding the tribal placement, either Brevinasia (and the two related other undescribed genera mentioned above) could be included in Namaini, broadening the concept of the tribe, or maintained as an independent clade. For the time being, we prefer the second choice and do not assign Brevinasia to any tribe, also because there are several other undescribed species that cluster morphologically as sister taxon to Brevinasia, and sampling for molecular analysis in this group is highly incomplete; the phylogeny of this group is therefore uncertain. Morphologically, the species of Brevinasia differ from those of the genera of Namaini in having a very short rostrum and generally smaller size, but these characters do not apply to the other species mentioned above."

The mistaken use of "brevipennis" was corrected

ALL your notes page by page have been checked and corrected.

Notes: Page 12. The termis "grassnetting" and "groundtraps" were used by Endroedy-Younga, and we do not have any information. It's likely grass sweeping and pit-fall traps, but we copied the original labels, and unfortunately cannot make any supposition on Endroedy-Younga methods.

Some illustration was modified, in particular some photos of the details of the sidesof the pronotum have been added. About gonocoxites, it's been added in the description that there are three different types, short styli, medium-length styli and very long styli. So the illustrations refer to each of the three types, even though the drawing was based on other species than those for which the character was used in the key. It would be pleonastic to add almost identical drawings. About the spermatheca, we have added in M&M a reference to the glossary that was used throughout the paper for morphologicval and genitalia descriptions.

The remarks on the key have been considered and the key modified accordingly.

Thank you for your accurate reading of the paper.

MM & RB

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

congratulations on an interesting article and many new species in such a poorly explored area of the world. 

I included all suggestions as a comments in the PDF file.

Some other suggestions:

1)  Abstract should be reworded. Listing all the new species is correct and necessary, but giving the precise gps coordinates of all type localities seems unnecessary to me. There is no information about the key included in the article. There should be at least a few sentences on the biology and habitat preferences of the new genus. There is no information about the genetic data deposited with GenBank and what kind of information it is.

2) Introduction - I feel a very great lack of information, as a reader. I would like to know something more about the details of the collecting of material, the number of expeditions or some environmental and historical research data.  

3) M&M - I strongly recommend that the methodology be described in greater detail. Although it is very thoroughly presented in the cited paper, the reader may not have the opportunity to check it.

4) The work contains many editorial errors!
Italics are missing in many places.
The key is misaligned with the rest of the text.
Many figure citations in the text refer to wrong figures (marked in the text). The numbering of plate 10 is duplicated, so that all further numbering is misrepresented in the text.
Photographs within the plates for each species are misplaced (highlighted in the text).
Some parts of the descriptions should be moved to previous pages to fill in the blanks.
Plates with photos should be on single pages, without other text. So that the reader can print them out without additional text.
Sections with headings with species names should be better highlighted, separated by blank lines and larger font. 

5) Citation - acording to Citation Policies of MDPI "Authors should not engage in excessive self-citation of their own work."  Of course, taxonomy is a specific area of science, where there are often few researchers working on a particular taxa and it is natural to cite their own work when continuing research. To avoid accusations by the editors of over-citing their own papers, I suggest adding some citations to the manuscript that are in line with the topic of the article. This can be done in the Introduction, which as I suggested, should be expanded.

I advise authors to check the numbering of each figure in the text very carefully during proofreading.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Hello! first of all, apologize for the double numbering of Figure 10, which resulted in a messy numbering of a lot of figures. Actually I am not generally so sloppy... This was caused by not re-naming the previous file. When I checked the final version, i noticed the mistake and renumbered the figures accordingly. Unfortunately, the new file was automatically saved in the cloud, on OneDrive, but when I uploaded the file to Taxonomy, I picked the file in my local HD, where I used to save the files, so, the old file with the mistaken numbering was uploaded,

Going to your specific remarks.

Abstract was reworded

Introduction and M&M: we have added references. The paper with the details of our studies is open access, and we have been previously invited by an editor to synthetize all data that had been previously published regarding Intro and M&M when they were referring to the same series of papers.

Editorial errors. These have all been added by the editor, including the messing organization of the tabel... All have been corrected and the entire paper was correctly paginated. For fonts, in particular headings of the new species, this is an editorial choice, and we cannot change it - of course an interline before each new species is necessary and specifically required.

Remarks on the pdf: All have been considerd and the text modified accordingly.

We wish to thank you for your accurate check of the paper.

Best regards,

MM & RB