Studies on Impatiens of Western Himalaya–Rediscovery of Impatiens reidii After Type Collection, Reinstating Impatiens inayatii, and Merging Impatiens scullyi with Impatiens tingens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 22: “Urticifoliae” should be italicized.

Line 86: The material chosen cannot be a LECTOTYPE because it DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL.

 

Explanation: In the descriptions, the authors mention the examined only 2 materials in Edinburgh and in St Petersburg. The collector is mentioned as ‘Duthie and Reid’ and does not mention collection numbers. You cannot choose a different material, with a number, only by Reid, and in a completely different herbarium. If you cannot really locate a material from Duthie & Reid in herbarium LE or E, you would have to assign this chosen material as a NEOTYPE.

 

However, because the original description has a PLATE, the solution is that you are obliged by the code to assign the PLATE or even better, the original drawing that was used to make the plate (probably in Kew Archives) as the LECTOTYPE, because it has precedence over non-mentioned materials for a neotype.

 

Line171: Let us assume here that there exists a single Inayat specimen that matches the protologue, otherwise you should challenge this lectotypification as a neotype. You probably reviewed herbaria and will be able to tackle this decision.

 

Line 272

 

The material India, Western Himalaya, Simla, below Nagkanda, 8000–9,000 ft., M.P. Edgeworth 271 339 (Lectotype designated here: K [K000694912!]) does not appear really in the citation of the original description “Nagkanda, Dohbri & c). The only link appear to be the geographical location. You need to include some text indication the rationale for this lectotype, if these are, for example the only 2 materials by Edgeworth from dates preceding the description, or if there is the author annotation of type in the material. Please clarify better the lectotype assignment. If there are no incontestable rationale, better keep as neotype, but I believe you probably can justify this with some extra information.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions. We have incorporated suggested changes in the manuscript and have done corrections where ever required. 

Please find the revised manuscript attached below with changes highlighted and notes on lectotypification added with justifications.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study of Impatiens species from the Western Himalayas is significant as the region is poorly studied due to the geographical conditions. The paper submitted for review deals with one of the least known taxa - Impatiens reidii and I. tingens. Particularly valuable, in my opinion, is the extended description for all studied species included in the paper submitted for review, with information on their botanical history, species etymology, key identification characters, distribution, phenology, ecology, and first photographic documentation of I. reidii and I. inayatii. The paper is generally well prepared and the authors' argumentation for the reclassification of the taxa studied is, in my opinion, correct. The figures, which include photographs of the taxa studied together with the characters used in the taxonomy, are excellently prepared. 
However, I recommend that minor corrections be made before this work is published.
Lines 72-74: Latin sentences are usually written in italics.
Line 171: Please delete 17September, should be 17 September
Line 218: Please rewrite and expand the first sentence of the paragraph
Lines 320 and 337: Impatiens tingens or I. tingens - we always write Latin names in italics.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions. We have incorporated suggested changes in the manuscript and have done corrections where ever required. 

Please find the revised manuscript attached below with changes highlighted and notes on lectotypification added with justifications.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with the large genus Impatiens and in particular with some new discoveries and confirmations. The topic is interesting and falls within the scope of the journal. However, the presentation must be improved and some sentences are very unclear in English. For further suggestions see the file in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are unclear and the English used should be revised by a mother tongue.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions. We have incorporated suggested changes in the manuscript and have done corrections where ever required. 

Please find the revised manuscript attached below with changes highlighted and notes on lectotypification added with justifications.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the manuscript according to the suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English could still be improved.

Author Response

Thanks