A Review of Miroculis (Ommaethus) Savage and Peters, 1983 (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae)^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This is a straightforward, exclusively morphology-based review of the subgenus Ommaethus within the genus Miroculis. A key to the species is also provided, which was helpful.  Figures are fine and support the text.  There’s not a lot more to say.

 

My only suggestion is as follows:  It’s 2024 and integrative taxonomy is the standard now. Even if the authors did not provide any molecular data (not even a mitochondrial genealogy) they should at least put 1-2 sentences in the Discussion saying that molecular data may further elucidate the relationships of the species and subgenera within Miroculis. There should be something to this effect.  

 

 

Minor edits:

 

Line 29: “…described 10 new species allocated on four newly proposed subgenera.”

 

This would read better if it said “described 10 new species allocated into four newly proposed subgenera.”

 

Lines 47-48: “we present a review on the species of the subgenus and describe a new species.”

 

This would read better if it said “we present a review of the species within the subgenus and describe a new species.”

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general, the quality of English in this manuscript is perfectly fine.  There are only a couple of very minor awkward wordings and I have suggested changes to these.

Author Response

Dear colleague, thank you very much for your revision.

All suggestions pointed by you have been included in the new version.

Kind regards,

Frederico

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on “ A review of Miroculis (Ommaethus) Savage and Peters, 1983 (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae)”

 

This submission describes a new species and provides some photographs of the other two. It shows vividly the bodies, wings and genitalia of all three species in the subgenus Miroculis (Ommaethus). Additionally, this draft demonstrates the possible species differentiation and distribution of those three species, which is crucial to future related works.

However, this submission also has several weaknesses, which should be improved in the return. The major points I concerned are:

(1) The species M. (O.) mourei is the type species of the subgenus Miroculis (Ommaethus), which plays a key role in taxonomy of this taxon and this submission. According to the literature 2 (Savage and Peters, 1983) in the submission, in both description and picture 65, the posteromedian portion of its subgenital plate is concave, which is the diagnostic feature of the subgenus. In contrast, in the picture 8f of the submission, the “species M. (O.) mourei” sensu authors has straight posterior margin of its subgenital plate, which seems unlike the original description.

Besides, the hindwings of the same species of the submission and literature 2 are not consistent either. In the picture 7f of the submission, the species M. (O.) mourei has tinged veins and outer margin of hindwings. Unlikely, in the pictures 23-24 of literature 2, the hindwings of the species have no distinct pigments on margins. Furthermore, the venations in two literatures are not similar either, there are less crossveins between Sc and R₁ in the submission.

The forceps of them are not same neither. In the submission (figures 8E-F), the segment II of forceps has slightly expanded or widened apex, but in the literature 2 (figure 65), the segment II of forceps has parallel margins. In the literature 2, the segment III is acute but in the submission, it seems blunt.

So in my own opinion, the real status of the “species M. (O.) mourei” in the submission needs confirm or recheck.

(2) The species M. (O.) froehlichi in the submission needs recheck too because its forceps lost segments II-III, and its segment I is not same as the original description in the literature 2 (figure 68). In the submission, the margins of apical half of forceps segment I are convex but in the literature 2, the margins of same parts are straight.

(3) The new species “M. (O.) cipoensis” in the submission is very close to the species “M. (O.) mourei” because of their similar color pattern and genitalia shape although the former one is slightly fainter than the latter.

(4) A review should present comprehensive and thorough information of the studied taxon and resolve most (if not all) historical puzzles. However, this submission describes an imaginal stage of a new species only, remaining all other problems unsolved, without more nymphs nor full investigation in the country or continent.

(5) The synonym proposed in the submission is based on description and figure but without checking any materials or type specimens of the junior species.

(6) In the material part, the paratypes of the new species should include only those specimens collected at the same place and date with the holotype but excluding other materials. For those two old species, legally the holotype is a single one specimen, so the expression “ 1♂ holotype” should be changed to “the holotype (♂)”.

(7) The diagnoses of the new species almost depend on color only. The shape of forceps, wings, venation and female egg-guide should be mentioned.

(8) In writing, the introduction part of the submission provides some information of the genus but not any of the subgenus. Further, it does not present any reason about the research. Because the genus is endemic to south America, in my opinion, the submission should provide more information on its diversity and phylogeny in the introduction part to more broader colleagues.

In the discussion section, the submission indicates its two shortages but without any “discussing” on the relationship of the three species or the phylogenetic position of the subgenus.

(9) The pictures in the submission are not perfect. (A) the color of them are too dull to accept. (B) All forceps are not entire, one or two segments of them are missing in the figure 8. (C) there is not any scale bar in the picture, which is not good to get the real size or relative size of the forewings and hindwings. (D) Bodies in the figures 1-6 are divided into two sections but without any picture of whole body or habitus. (E) upper letter (A, B, C) in the picture but lower letter (a, b, c) in the picture note.

(10) There are some mistakes and errors. For instances, “segment I and III” in the line 15 should be “segment II and III”, “From 2007 on” in line 29 should be “From 2007 to now”, “ The subgenus Ommaethus” in the line 33 should be “The subgenus Miroculis (Ommaethus)”, etc.

Format such as “[2] performed a revision” (line 28) is not seen in any other place.

 

In short, the submission provides some useful information about mayfly taxonomy but its title should be changed to “the imaginal morphology of three species in the subgenus Miroculis (Ommaethus)”. All parts of this submission should be improved or rechecked at some level, such as its words, format, figures, introduction, discussion and species identification.

Author Response

Dear colleague, 

Thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for the list of suggestions.  Find below our response to them.

(1) We are confident on the identification of our material as M. mourei, despite the differences pointed by the reviewer.  All of them are intraspecific variations and/or mounting artifacts.  The straight posterior margin of M. mourei's subgenital plate in the figure is an artifact of the mounting. Depending on the position of the styliger plate, the concavity is not clear.  We examined the other male from the same locality and the concavity is evident, as well as males from Espírito Santo. A sentence was added to explain this issue.  Concerning the other comments on the species: a) there's a variation in the number of cross veins on hind wings, between Sc and R1, from 2 to 4 in our specimens; b) the tinged outer margin of the hind wing disappears more rapidly than the remaining pigmentation on the wings. It's our opinion that this mark was fainted when the species was described; c) subtable differences among the forceps segments are also due to the mounting position of the genitalia and the angle on which the forceps is exposed.

(2) Rechecked: the subtle difference pointed by the reviewer is also a mounting artifact.

(3) They are probably very close, but the differences are not restricted to the coloration, as pointed in the diagnosis section.

(4) We investigated previous work and material on a group, including all the species and the whole distributional area of the subgenus.  The term review is widely accepted in this sense and, therefore, we did not change the title.

(5) The synonym is proposed based on photographs. This is clear in the text and is a common practice these days.  There's no need to check the material when figures are enough.  Additional sentences were added in order to make it clear.

(6) All suggestions accepted.

(7) We found no relevant information on wing venation and the shape of the forceps is problematic due to mounting issues.  We decided to keep the diagnosis as presented.

(8) We added some information on the introduction in order to improve it.

(9) The other two reviewers made no comments concerning the quality of the figures, on the contrary, so we understand that there are no issues with them.  It's also our opinion that there's no need to show a picture of the whole specimens, as there's nothing missing on the plates. Some forceps segments are missing because they are broken on all available specimens, I'm afraid there's nothing we can do. We understand that scale bars are not mandatory and available information on wing and body lengths are enough to compare the species. The use of upper letters was standardized along the text.

(10) All accepted, except for "From 2007 on", which is correct and for "Format such as “[2] performed a revision” (line 28) is not seen in any other place.", which I could not understand.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment to Authors:

This paper makes a significant contribution to our knowledge of the mayflies of the Atlantic Forest area of Brazil. The manuscript was well prepared, and I have made only a few comments on the text concerning formatting. My comment concerning the photo images is just a question on my part and is not meant to be construed as something you must do if its not required by the journal. There is only part of one sentence that needs some clarification, and it is marked in yellow. Otherwise, the manuscript is relatively clean – good job.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear colleague, thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript.  All suggestions have been accepted in the new version.  Concerning the scale bars, I don't think that they are mandatory and, for that reason, they have not been included.

Kind regards,

Frederico

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None of  major comments is changed. 

Author Response

Changes have been made according to the comments previously provided.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done well to address all previous concerns. No additional changes are necessary. Good job!

Author Response

Thank you!