Two New Troglobitic Species of the Genus Spelaeogammarus da Silva Brum, 1975 (Amphipoda, Artesiidae) from Brazil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript – Taxonomy-3598582
Two new troglobitic species of the genus Spelaeogammarus da Silva Brum, 1975 (Amphipoda, Artesiidae) from Brazil
_________________________________________________________________________
Comments:
Page 1, Line 31: …“distributed across five distinct families”… It would be instructive to mention the five families. Please, consider to include those families.
Page 2, Line 50: “2.1. Study area”. The fist two paragraphs do not mention any reference. Please, consider to include literature to describe the area.
Pages 3 and 10, Lines 107 and 307: …“Spelaeogammarus rafaelae sp. nov.”… and …“Spelaeogammarus lundi sp. nov.”… It is highly recommended to register new nomenclatural acts with ZOOBANK, and include the record along with the new species name in the manuscript. Please, consider seriously to do the official registry of zoological nomenclature.
In general, the MS is well written and presented (with detailed descriptions for species), illustrations and photographs are ok. But, in my personal opinion, descriptions of new species using females and only one single specimen make weak the taxonomic determination of the two different species, furthermore if these are not enough contrasting in mouthparts, where diagnostic characteristics are determined for potential sister species. My suggestion is to merge the two species descriptions into one, and to include a section on the intraspecific variability.
If they decide to present the two species as new, I suggest highlighting that molecular analyses would be necessary to confirm the identity of the species. In addition, it is highly recommended to present a taxonomic key for the genus; it would be a great contribution and would help to separate and determine the two new species.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your comments, which were very helpful in improving the manuscript. However, we chose to maintain the two species as separate descriptions, since the localities where the specimens were collected are considerably distant and the dispersal capacity of these animals is low. Geographically, it would be impossible for them to be the same species, as there are several dispersal barriers between the two localities, the most important of which is the São Francisco River.
Regarding the use of females for species description, I believe this is an important consideration when dealing with other taxonomic groups, such as Isopoda, for example. However, in the case of Amphipoda—more specifically the genus Spelaeogammarus—the only observed sexual dimorphism is the presence of oostegites in females (see other species descriptions for reference).
Concerning the use of only a single individual for species description, we fully agree that this is not ideal. Nevertheless, the collection of these animals is extremely difficult and limited. Our research group conducted four expeditions to the Zoológico cave, and only one specimen was found, which suggests a low population density. We decided to describe the species based on that single individual precisely because this cave hosts a high number of troglobitic invertebrates (which are also currently being described), and due to the urgent need for its conservation. We will emphasize the necessity of a complementary description or the future use of molecular data.
Comments 1: Page 1, Line 31: …“distributed across five distinct families”… It would be instructive to mention the five families. Please, consider to include those families.
Response 1: Included.
Comments 2: Page 2, Line 50: “2.1. Study area”. The fist two paragraphs do not mention any reference. Please, consider to include literature to describe the area.
Response 2: Added.
Comments 3: Pages 3 and 10, Lines 107 and 307: …“Spelaeogammarus rafaelae sp. nov.”… and …“Spelaeogammarus lundi sp. nov.”… It is highly recommended to register new nomenclatural acts with ZOOBANK, and include the record along with the new species name in the manuscript. Please, consider seriously to do the official registry of zoological nomenclature.
Response 3: will be registered.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe description of species has problems in the terminology and the evaluation of the morphology in some appendages. Authors are recommended to re-examine the manuscript carefully.
Line 86, 87: (Watling 1989 [10]), (Zimmer…) → Watling (l989 [10]), Zimmer (..)
Lines 89-93: each of five sentences to bold letters. (for the editors)
Line 95: antenna → antenna 1
Line 96: delete “with”.
Line 97: “segments” → “articles”.
Line 98: “with symmetrical 2-segmented palp”, not make sense for maxilla 2.
Line 100: what is “lenticular organs”? Citation of reference recommended.
Line 105: “subapical spines” → “marginal robust setae”, same to every description of the telson, also in table 1.
Lines 106 and 107: make a line space in-between. (for the editors)
Line 119: “1.6 longer” → “1.6 X longer”
Line 134: “article 1” → “peduncular article 1”.
Line 136: “Length” → “Tip”; “fourth” → “third”.
Line 138: “article 4” → “peduncular article 4”.
Line 158: “apical” → “inner”; “article 4” → “article 3”.
Figure 1, A 1: The position of the accessory flagellum is erroneous. It must be inserted to the tip of the peduncular article 3, but in the figure, it is illustrated to the tip of the article 2.
Line163: left distal” → “posterodistal”.
Line 166: “dorsal” → “posterodistal”.
Line 168: “longer” → “long”.
Line 181: “palm acute, … margin” not correct; rewrite exactly after the figure.
Line185: “posteroproximal” →　“posterodistal”.
Line 197: “merus short”, merus is not short ??
Line 208: “smaller” → “longer”.
Line 236: “as long as inner ramus”, is it correct?? Confirm on the specimens.
Line 243: “distolateral” → “dorsolateral”.
Line 253, 459: → “Oostegites long and naked inserted on coxal plates 2-5.”
Lines 256 and 257: Insert the following sentence in-between, “ Character states of the congeneric species with the new species are summarized in Table 1.
Line 339: “article 1” → “peduncular article 1”.
Line 342: “article 4” → “peduncular article 4”.
Line 357: “with” → “to”.
Line 362: “article 1, largest,” article 1 not largest ??
Line 368: “longer than wide” → “wider than long”
Line 371: “distoventral” to “posterodistal”.
Line 376: “longer than wide” →　“wider than long”.
Lines 376, 377: “subtriangular”, is it correct ??
Line 378: “distoventral” → “posterodistal”.
Line 381: “medial” → “distal”.
Line 383: “shorter” →　“longer”
Line 400: delete “with”.
Line 403: “bigger” → “longer and wider”; “bilobed” is correct ??
Line 412: delete “slightly”.
Figure 6, P6 P7 and related description: descriptions of armament of anterior and posterior margins on ischium to propodus seem confused. Carefully inspect them again.
Line 433: “longer in length to” → “longer than”.
Lines 466- (Morphological remarks): Need to cite the table 1, as in the case of the preceding species. In this discussion, the differences from related species are not expressed clearly.
Line 481: insert “at” in front of “numerous other caves…”.
Figure 10: Need explanatory legend for this figure and a scale.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for the suggestions, which have certainly helped improve the manuscript. We will carefully and thoroughly revise the text and make the necessary changes. In addition, we will also review the English to ensure better clarity. Furthermore, we have made some comments below.
Comments:
The description of species has problems in the terminology and the evaluation of the morphology in some appendages. Authors are recommended to re-examine the manuscript carefully.
Comments 1: Line 86, 87: (Watling 1989 [10]), (Zimmer…) → Watling (l989 [10]), Zimmer (..)
Response 1: Corrected.
Comments 2: Lines 89-93: each of five sentences to bold letters. (for the editors)
Response 2: Corrected.
Comments 3: Line 95: antenna → antenna 1
Response 3: Corrected.
Comments 4: Line 96: delete “with”.
Response 4: Corrected.
Comments 5: Line 97: “segments” → “articles”.
Response 5: Corrected.
Comments 6: Line 98: “with symmetrical 2-segmented palp”, not make sense for maxilla 2.
Response 6: Corrected.
Comments 7: Line 100: what is “lenticular organs”? Citation of reference recommended.
Response 7: Lenticular organs reffers to lens-like sensory structures found in some crustacens, associated with mechanoreception. As mentioned, it is a emended diagnosis adapted from Keonemann and Holsinger, 2000.
Comments 8: Line 105: “subapical spines” → “marginal robust setae”, same to every description of the telson, also in table 1.
Response 8: The use of the terms apical and subapical spines followed all recent descriptions of Spelaeogammarus.
Comments 9: Lines 106 and 107: make a line space in-between. (for the editors)
Response 9: Corrected.
Comments 10: Line 119: “1.6 longer” → “1.6 X longer”
Response 10: Corrected.
Comments 11: Line 134: “article 1” → “peduncular article 1”.
Response 11: Corrected.
Comments 12: Line 136: “Length” → “Tip”; “fourth” → “third”.
Response 12: Corrected.
Comments 13: Line 138: “article 4” → “peduncular article 4”.
Response 13: Corrected.
Comments 14: Line 158: “apical” → “inner”; “article 4” → “article 3”.
Response 14: Corrected.
Comments 15: Figure 1, A 1: The position of the accessory flagellum is erroneous. It must be inserted to the tip of the peduncular article 3, but in the figure, it is illustrated to the tip of the article 2.
Response 15: Corrected.
Comments 16: Line163: left distal” → “posterodistal”.
Response 16: Corrected.
Comments 17: Line 166: “dorsal” → “posterodistal”.
Response 17: Corrected.
Comments 18: Line 168: “longer” → “long”.
Response 18: Corrected.
Comments 19: Line 181: “palm acute, … margin” not correct; rewrite exactly after the figure.
Response 19: Corrected.
Comments 20: Line185: “posteroproximal” →　“posterodistal”.
Response 20: Corrected.
Comments 21: Line 197: “merus short”, merus is not short ??
Response 21: Corrected.
Comments 22: Line 208: “smaller” → “longer”.
Response 22: Corrected.
Comments 23: Line 236: “as long as inner ramus”, is it correct?? Confirm on the specimens.
Response 23: Yes, it is. However, they were overlapping.
Comments 24: Line 243: “distolateral” → “dorsolateral”.
Response 24: Corrected.
Comments 25: Line 253, 459: → “Oostegites long and naked inserted on coxal plates 2-5.”
Response 25: Corrected.
Comments 26: Lines 256 and 257: Insert the following sentence in-between, “ Character states of the congeneric species with the new species are summarized in Table 1.
Response 26: Corrected.
Comments 27: Line 339: “article 1” → “peduncular article 1”.
Response 27: Corrected.
Comments 28: Line 342: “article 4” → “peduncular article 4”.
Response 28: Corrected.
Comments 29: Line 357: “with” → “to”.
Response 29: Corrected.
Comments 30: Line 362: “article 1, largest,” article 1 not largest ??
Response 30: Corrected.
Comments 31: Line 368: “longer than wide” → “wider than long”
Response 31: Corrected.
Comments 32: Line 371: “distoventral” to “posterodistal”.
Response 32: Corrected.
Comments 33: Line 376: “longer than wide” →　“wider than long”.
Response 33: Corrected.
Comments 34: Lines 376, 377: “subtriangular”, is it correct ??
Response 34: Corrected.
Comments 35: Line 378: “distoventral” → “posterodistal”.
Response 35: Corrected.
Comments 36: Line 381: “medial” → “distal”.
Response 36: Corrected.
Comments 37: Line 383: “shorter” →　“longer”
Response 37: Corrected.
Comments 38: Line 400: delete “with”.
Response 38: Corrected.
Comments 39: Line 403: “bigger” → “longer and wider”; “bilobed” is correct ??
Response 39: Corrected; Yes, it means that it has two lobes.
Comments 40: Line 412: delete “slightly”.
Response 40: Corrected.
Comments 41: Figure 6, P6 P7 and related description: descriptions of armament of anterior and posterior margins on ischium to propodus seem confused. Carefully inspect them again.
Response 41: Corrected. The ischium is not described as it does not show significant morphological changes.
Comments 42: Line 433: “longer in length to” → “longer than”.
Response 42: Corrected.
Comments 43: Lines 466- (Morphological remarks): Need to cite the table 1, as in the case of the preceding species. In this discussion, the differences from related species are not expressed clearly.
Response 43: Table 1 mentioned. We mentioned what makes the new species different from other described species: "it is characterized by the presence of only 2 - 4 bifid setae on the dorsal margin of the uropod 3 outer ramus. Also, by being the second species of the genus that presents a 3-articulate accessory flagellum." Would you prefer if we included citations for each of the differences identified between the species mentioned?
Comments 44: Line 481: insert “at” in front of “numerous other caves…”.
Response 44: Corrected.
Comments 45: Figure 10: Need explanatory legend for this figure and a scale.
Response 45: Corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reviewing replies to the initial comments, the manuscript clarified certain points of interest to me. But, did not address a suggestion that I think would be very important, and that would enhance the contribution of the manuscript:
"it is highly recommended to present a taxonomic key for the genus; It would be a great contribution and would help to separate and determine the two new species"'
Please, seriously consider proposing a taxonomic key. Due to the high similarity of the species and the concentration of many species of the same genus (11 spp.) in a same geographical region, it would be a valuable identification tool for experts and non-experts people.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have complied with the request to develop an identification key for the genus Spelaeogammarus based on the morphological comparison table. Please feel free to suggest any changes you deem necessary!
Thank you!
