Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article is well-written and presents a robust analysis, supported by concise morphological, micromorphological, and molecular data, which validate the results.I have made a few minor suggestions to improve the flow of the reading, particularly regarding the revision of the caption for Figure 9 ("Micromorphology of leaf abaxial epidermis under SEM").I also recommend that the images be organized in the order of citation in the text. For instance, the figures pertaining to Indocalamus guangdongensis var. mollis and I. guangdongensis could be rearranged as 1A and 1B, or preferably 1A and 1E, to maintain the citation pattern of the other figures and enhance the clarity of the section for the reader. These minor adjustments will ensure the article meets the necessary standards for publication.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1: 

1.The article is well-written and presents a robust analysis, supported by concise morphological, micromorphological, and molecular data, which validate the results.

Response 1: Thank you for your recognition. We will revise it carefully as you suggests.

 

2.I have made a few minor suggestions to improve the flow of the reading, particularly regarding the revision of the caption for Figure 9 ("Micromorphology of leaf abaxial epidermis under SEM").

Response 2: Thanks. We have rearranged them.

 

3.I also recommend that the images be organized in the order of citation in the text. For instance, the figures pertaining to Indocalamus guangdongensis var. mollis and I. guangdongensis could be rearranged as 1A and 1B, or preferably 1A and 1E, to maintain the citation pattern of the other figures and enhance the clarity of the section for the reader.

Response 3: Ok. We have rearranged them.

4.These minor adjustments will ensure the article meets the necessary standards for publication.

Response 4: Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Bamboos have two kinds of leaves: culm leaves and foliage leaves. Each of these consists of a sheath, ligules and a blade. When authors refer to “leaf sheath” or “blade”, I do not understand which sheath or blade they are describing. Authors must clarify in each case if they are referring to the culm leaf or the foliage leaf.

Figure 1 must be the first figure cited in the text. Here, Figure 2 is the first figure cited in the text, and Figure 1 is the last figure cited in the text. Authors must rearrange figure numbers.

Also, figure 3 J is cited before figure 3 A, 8 B before 8 A, 9 G before 9 A, B, C, D, etc. Figures must be cited in alphabetical order. Authors must rearrange figure citations.

Line 66: How many specimens of Indocalamus tessellatus were sampled?

Line 122: What is the point of showing the holotype specimen of Indocalamus guagndongensis? Authors may simply name the type locality. Figure 2 is irrelevant.

Line 129: Foliage leaf or culm leaf?

Image 6 A and G are not cited in the text.

Image 8 E and L are not cited in the text.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As a non-native English speaker, I think authors should have their manuscript professionally edited to improve the English level. Also, authors need to consult more botanical literature and be extra careful with the terms used for micromorphological descriptions.

When referring to the micromorphological studies, the correct term is “foliage leaf blade abaxial epidermis”. This must be corrected throughout the manuscript.

Lines 201-214: Authors must rewrite this paragraph. There are many grammatical mistakes throughout it, verbs are missing, words are misspelled.

Author Response

Reviewer 2: 

1. Bamboos have two kinds of leaves: culm leaves and foliage leaves. Each of these consists of a sheath, ligules and a blade. When authors refer to “leaf sheath” or “blade”, I do not understand which sheath or blade they are describing. Authors must clarify in each case if they are referring to the culm leaf or the foliage leaf.

Response 1: Thanks. The shape and character of bamboo plants are special, so are their terms. Let me explain briefly. You refer to the ‘culm leaves’ included culm sheath (hold the part of the stalk tightly), sheath auricle (Some species are small or absent) and sheath ligule et al., ‘foliage leaves’ included leaf sheath(the part of the base of a leaf that hugs a branchlet), leaf auricle (Some species are small or absent) and leaf ligule et al. in this article. Often, when describing a part, only the subtle parts need to be concerned, so the full name is not indicated. This is the description method commonly used by bamboo taxonomists. Let me show you two pictures to illustrate.

 

 

 

Response 2: Ok. We have rearranged them.

 

3. Also, figure 3 J is cited before figure 3 A, 8 B before 8 A, 9 G before 9 A, B, C, D, etc. Figures must be cited in alphabetical order. Authors must rearrange figure citations.

Response 3: Ok. We have rearranged them.

 

4. Line 66: How many specimens of Indocalamus tessellatuswere sampled?

Response 4: This species’s type specimens include holotype and neotype, they are all quoted here.

 

5. Line 122: What is the point of showing the holotype specimen of Indocalamus guangdongensis? Authors may simply name the type locality. Figure 2 is irrelevant.

Response 5: OK. Figure 2 does seem meaningless here,we have deleted it.

 

6. Line 129: Foliage leaf or culm leaf?

Response 6: It’s leaf sheath.

 

7. Image 6 A and G are not cited in the text.

Response 7:Ok. We have rearranged them.

 

8. Image 8 E and L are not cited in the text.

Response 8:Ok. We have rearranged them.

 

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions again.

(End of document)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf