Description of the Fifth Species of the Neotropical Leafhopper Genus Andanus Linnavuori, 1959 (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) from Peru, with an Updated Key to All Species

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper describes a new species of leafhopper in the family Deltocephaline, which is very important because this family contains important examples of disease vectors for agriculture and further taxonomic studies of the group are important.

I have only minor considerations in the text of the material and methods section, which are marked in the file of my review, but which I leave below.

Lines 60-62: Add information about the collections where the types were verified and the author references the keys used.

Lines 62-65: Add references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your valuable comments, which were fully addressed.

Comment 1: Lines 60-62: Add information about the collections where the types were verified and the author references the keys used.
Response 1: Added in last paragraphs, lines 80 to 84

Comment 2: Lines 62-65: Add references.
Response 1: Reference added

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Change title from “The fifth species…” to “A new species”)

2.      Cicadellidae include little over 23,000 species, please see https://hoppers.speciesfile.org/otus/13595/overview

3.      Deltocephalinae include 7231 valid species, please see

https://hoppers.speciesfile.org/otus/20149/overview

4.      The reference to 230 genera and 1150species is questionable? What do those numbers correspond to? Probably the tribe Athysanini, although not mentioned in the text. Even if this is the case, the numbers are incorrect.

5.      “The tribe Athysanini in the New World comprises 126…” 126 of what?

6.      “Definition for the tribe is not well-defined” please change the wording. “Defenition defined” does not sound well.

7.      “some placements of genera are questionable into other tribes” Which genera? Do the genera belong to Athysanini or some other tribes?

8.      Line 53, the material could not be housed in the acronyms. It could only be housed in the museums.

9.      Species list: There is nomen nudum species name: Andanus undatus Linnavuory 1956 (from Brazil: Rio Grande). The author does not say anything about it.

10.  The new species epithet. When an adjective and noun are combined, usually adjective is placed first: albomaculata, rubroscuta. In this sense, “acanthophallus” would be more euphonic species name.

11. Fig. 4-6. It is not pygofer and segment X, it is the pygofer and anal tube (which is two segmented).

12. Diagnosis: “major difference is observed in pygofer and aedeagus with unique complex arrangement of apical process” This is not a diagnosis. ICZN require a statement in words what the differences to the closely related species are. Saying that the species is different from all other species is not enough. What is called “Diagnosis” (the first paragraph of the description). Is not a diagnosis. ICZN definition of the diagnosis: “A statement in words that purports to give those characters which differentiate the taxon from other taxa with which it is likely to be confused”. So, you must name those taxa and state what the differences are. The same applies to each species if the diagnosis is provided.

Reference 1 is provided only in the list of references but not cited anywhere in the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall English need significant improvement. Some of the sentences lack logical connection or just broken in the middle. This is especially true for introduction and conclusions. See some of the comments above.

Author Response

Comment 1: Change title from “The fifth species…” to “A new species”)

Response 1: Tittle changed as suggested

Comment 2: Cicadellidae include little over 23,000 species, please see https://hoppers.speciesfile.org/otus/13595/overview

Response 2: Number updated.

Comment 3: Deltocephalinae include 7231 valid species, please see https://hoppers.speciesfile.org/otus/20149/overview

Response 3: Thanks for clarify, number has been updated

Comment 4: The reference to 230 genera and 1150species is questionable? What do those numbers correspond to? Probably the tribe Athysanini, although not mentioned in the text. Even if this is the case, the numbers are incorrect.

Response 4: thanks for such great observation numbers were mixed up; the previous count was for the tribe Athysanini worldwide, not for Deltocephalinae, now numbers have been updated.

Comment 5: “The tribe Athysanini in the New World comprises 126…” 126 of what?

Response 5: context of sentence was updated

Comment 6: “Definition for the tribe is not well-defined” please change the wording. “Defenition defined” does not sound well.

Response 6: changed, readability improved

Comment 7: “some placements of genera are questionable into other tribes” Which genera? Do the genera belong to Athysanini or some other tribes?

Response 7: Have been changed and updated to facilitate interpretation and lecture to the lectors.

Comment 8: Line 53, the material could not be housed in the acronyms. It could only be housed in the museums.

Response 8: thanks for clarification, updated

Comment 9: Species list: There is nomen nudum species name: Andanus undatus Linnavuory 1956 (from Brazil: Rio Grande). The author does not say anything about it.

Response 9: the name undata was invalid due to Linnavuori stated as type for the genus Neocrassana described later in 1959

Comment 10: The new species epithet. When an adjective and noun are combined, usually adjective is placed first: albomaculata, rubroscuta. In this sense, “acanthophallus” would be more euphonic species name.

Response 10: suggestion has been followed and changed subsequently in manuscript

Comment 11: Fig. 4-6. It is not pygofer and segment X, it is the pygofer and anal tube (which is two segmented).

Response 11: updated as suggested

Comment 12: Diagnosis: “major difference is observed in pygofer and aedeagus with unique complex arrangement of apical process” This is not a diagnosis. ICZN require a statement in words what the differences to the closely related species are. Saying that the species is different from all other species is not enough. What is called “Diagnosis” (the first paragraph of the description). Is not a diagnosis. ICZN definition of the diagnosis: “A statement in words that purports to give those characters which differentiate the taxon from other taxa with which it is likely to be confused”. So, you must name those taxa and state what the differences are. The same applies to each species if the diagnosis is provided.

Response 12: updated according to suggestion and following ICNZ

Comment 13: Reference 1 is provided only in the list of references but not cited anywhere in the text.

Response 13: The reference was included in line 31

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a simple alpha-taxonomic work. Title is appropriate;  abstract is adequate; methods are standard and clearly described; the taxonomy comprehensive, the description of the taxa treated are justified on other grounds; the data justify the conclusions; all sections of the manuscript, and figures are necessary and well presented; adequate reference is made to other works and there is no excessive use of references.

just a few minor correction of typos - see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All changes suggested were incorporated in full

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is clear and well-organised.  I have marked a number of cases where the English should be corrected or improved.  See attached copy of the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have marked a number of cases where the English shoud be corrected or improved. See attached copy of the manuscript.

Author Response

Response: The Changes suggested were in ful, adressed, thansk for such grateful help.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

English of the manuscript needs significant improvement.

Of the inconsistencies:

1. Materials and methods. INHS is listed only as an abbreviation, but not as the name of the collection.
2. References, the last citations is empty
3. Some of my previous comments are still not fixed. For example, the diagnosis are not differential, if it is not differential, it is not diagnosis, it is a short description. The specimens could not be deposited to the museum acronyms. The specimens are deposited into museums or collection (for acronyms, readers could be referenced to the material and method section)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is very inconsistent, and needs significant improvement. The manuscript requires significant editorial work which is beyond the scope of normal review process.

Author Response

Comment 1: Materials and methods. INHS is listed only as an abbreviation, but not as the name of the collection.

Response 1: Now it has been added to the respective section, thanks for recalling this missing collection name

Comment 2: References, the last citations is empty
Response 2: Thanks for your observation, I missed it before but and now it is added

Comment 3: Some of my previous comments are still not fixed. For example, the diagnosis are not differential, if it is not differential, it is not diagnosis, it is a short description. The specimens could not be deposited to the museum acronyms. The specimens are deposited into museums or collection (for acronyms, readers could be referenced to the material and method section)

Response 3: (1) Diagnosis was improved substantially, statements make it easy to distinguish from other species in the genus, which are broadly different among them using male genitalia, and the current form of diagnosis makes it easier to differentiate. (2) Info in diagnosis section is highly different from description, not comparable btw them, which using diagnosis, other leafhopper taxonomists can extremely easy ID this species and segregate from others. (3) Fixed the issue with the acronym; sentence was rephrased. (4) The overall version of the manuscript submitted was reviewed by a native leafhopper English speaker, including this last version.