Diversity of the Subfamily Torodorinae (Lepidoptera: Lecithoceridae) in Afrotropical Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An important article on African biodiversity. However, it has a number of shortcomings.

1. It is necessary to provide a reference to the classification of Zoogeographical regions of the globe. Some authors combine Madagascar with Afrotropics (in my opinion, this is correct), therefore it is necessary to provide an indication of what zoogeographic literature the author used.

2. Unfortunately, there is no analysis of the distribution of species by country or by zoogeographic regions of Africa (only indications of type localities). It seems to me that this is a very important aspect.

Author Response

1. Afrotropical Region and Madagascar Region are generally separated each other (Holt et al., 2013), and newly given a “Discussion”, and also a reference to the classification of Zoogeographical regions is added [29]
2. Most of the new or newly reported species in the Afrotropical region are known in the type localities, and thus “the type localities” were only indicated, instead of the distributional range of the species. When the fauna is more or less surveyed throughout the continent, it will be very necessary, but the fauna has been poorly surveyed and the distributional range (in each country) is not meaningful at this moment. The names of the countries are already indicated in the type locality.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviews such as the one presented by the author in this manuscript are extremely valuable to progress in the knowledge of the biodiversity of a given group in a particular area. In this case, Torodorinae in the Afrotropical region.

Although I am convinced that the quality of this contribution in its current state is excellent, I must also point out that this study would be much better if the manuscript were accompanied by figures that allow a better understanding of the diagnoses provided for each genus. Furthermore, it is somewhat strange that the manuscript does not include a discussion in which the author explores future lines of research for the Torodorinae fauna of the Afrotropical region.

In summary, I suggest that the author include figures to highlight the morphological characters that define each genus, and an appropriate discussion.

I am not a native English speaker. The evaluation form compulsorily asks for an evaluation of this aspect. However, my evaluation of English should not be considered adequate.

Author Response

1. Thank you for your suggestions for giving some representative figures (pohotos) of the genera for better understanding. I am sorry that I could not include those photos and figures in detail. Because it makes a large paper if those are included, and I prepared a short review paper only for the brief understanding of the fauna of Afrotropical Region.
2. A “Discussion” is newly given at the end of the manuscript.

Corrections:

All corrections were indicated in text with red-characters.

Page 1: Abstract: the numbers changed: 590x-change to “600”, 113x-change to “130”.

        Introduction: some changed numbers are indicated “red characters

Page 2: Table 1 and Table 2: The known numbers were changed: indicated with red characters

 

Page 3-9: in all tables:

please align all species names, type locality, and depository to the left side 

Page 11: 29 and 30: align to the left side.

Additions: The high rate of the citations of author: Most of the taxonomic and faunal works during recent years since Meyrick have been done by the author, more than 95% of all. It is the reason why the citation rate for the author is so high.