Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Main goal of the present manuscript is a description of three new species from the Cathon indigaceus species group. New species seem to be well differentiated from the most related taxa, descriptions are associated with photos of male genitalia and other morphological features important for delimitation of these new species. The study is partially supported by an analysis of molecular data (CoxI and wingless genes).

 

There are several notes/corrections and issues for further discussion:

• in the abstract, abbreviation sp. nov. is missing for Canthon woodruffi.
• Because particular new species are authored by different scientists, please, list all names of authors for each new species also into abstract.
• Cathon indigaceus group was an object of another recent paper. Rivera-Gasperín et al. (2025) revised indigaceus group and keyed all 4 known to them species. You are now describing three more new taxa. It would be nice to update and modify identification key proposed by Rivera-Gasperín et al. to help readers with identification of all species in the indigaceus group.
• In the present manuscript, Canthon chiapas is mentioned as „chiapas“ but also as „chiapas sensu Rivera-Gasperín“. Are these two names identical? Are you in doubt, that Rivera-Gasperín et al. identify C. chiapas correctly (so, in the original sense of Robinson)? In such case, it would be nice to study type material of chiapas ...
• Based on your molecular studies, taxa chevrolati and chiapas are very similar, with no distinct genetic distance. What do you think about these two taxa from the taxonomic point of view? Your statement, that all taxa currently classified in the indigaceus group should be recognized as a valid species is not fully supported by chevrolati-chiapas couple.
• Figure 6: differences in the shape of apex of elytra for particular species are not very clear from the Figure 6. What about to add simple and schematic b/w figures?
• what data did you use for figure 9 (map)? In my opinion, it is a mixture of records from your current manuscript supplemented by records from Rivera-Gasperín et al. (2025) and maybe some other sources. Please, explain this in the manuscript.
• Molecular study is based on a small number of specimens only, it is a really pity and from this point of view, your study should be regarded as preliminary only.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

All the comments were addressed and incorporated in the manuscript. Particular responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer comment: In the present manuscript, Canthon chiapas is mentioned as „chiapas“ but also as „chiapas sensu Rivera-Gasperín“. Are these two names identical? Are you in doubt, that Rivera-Gasperín et al. identify C. chiapas correctly (so, in the original sense of Robinson)? In such case, it would be nice to study type material of chiapas ...

Response: It is likely that C. chiapas and C. chevrolati as defined by Rivera-Gasperín et al are not following the original sense for both species. We agree that it would be necessary to revise the type material of theses species. Nevertheless, the exact location of the type series of C. chipas is currently unknown to us and previous authors (such as Rivera-Gasperín et al and Halffter). Further investigation is needed to locate the type series of C. chiapas and to designate a lectotype for C. chevrolati.

 

Reviewer comment: Based on your molecular studies, taxa chevrolati and chiapas are very similar, with no distinct genetic distance. What do you think about these two taxa from the taxonomic point of view? Your statement, that all taxa currently classified in the indigaceus group should be recognized as a valid species is not fully supported by chevrolati-chiapas couple.

Response: We agree that the C. chevrolati-C. chiapas couple need further investigation. Depending on the identity of their bearing-name types they may be considered as synonyms if they pertain to the same species. On the other hand, both species might be uncorrectly defined, and their original definitions may be more restricted than those considered to date.

 

Reviewer comment: Molecular study is based on a small number of specimens only, it is a really pity and from this point of view, your study should be regarded as preliminary only.

Response: Under the framework of the Phylogenetic Systematics, all the phylogenetic trees are considered as hypotheses of evolutionary relationships between tasa, and those hypotheses are based on the available evidence. As we are dealing with a Phylogenetic approach, the inclusion of only one specimen by species is adequate. In this regard, our phylogenetic hypothesis is the best available to date for the C. indigaceus species group, because it includes five of seven species described to date. The inclusión of additional individuals would fit well with a phylogeographic study, which was not the aim of our work. Nevertheless, we fell that phylogeographic analyses will be needed in order to clarify the relationship between C. chevrolati and C. chiapas.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors Moctezuma, Sánchez-Huerta, Espinosa, Nolasco-Soto, and Halffter describe in great detail the Canthon indigaeus species group (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) and propose three new species. The authors include  a thorough phylogenetic reconstruction that suggest that the group is monophyletic.

Check minor errors:

Line, 4-5 should it be a symbol of the author who passed away?

Line 57, add exact percentage of KOH and time exposed

Line 91, check sequence

Line 161, add scale

Line 227, add scale, and remove or edit this photo mostly anteriorly, head, pronotum leg

292, add scale

293-294, explain captions why right photos dont have an explanation? Is it dorsal or frontal view?

336, black square or white square?

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

All the commentaries were addressed and incorporated in the document.

Best regards,