An Overlooked New Endemic Species of Renonus DeLong, 1959 (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Deltocephalinae: Athysanini) from the Seasonally Dry Forest of Western Mexico^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Dr. Pinedo-Escatel,

I would like to congratulate you on your excellent manuscript entitled “An overlooked new endemic species of Renonus DeLong, 1959 (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Deltocephalinae: Athysanini) from the Seasonally Dry Forest of Western Mexico”. The work is a valuable and well-executed taxonomic contribution that not only describes a new species with precise morphological detail, but also places the genus Renonus in a broader biogeographic and ecological context.

Your integration of historical records, rigorous fieldwork over multiple years, and comprehensive morphological analysis is commendable. The photographic quality, vectorized illustrations, and the construction of a clear dichotomous key are particularly strong aspects of the study. Additionally, your use of multiple collection techniques (fogging, sweep netting, and light traps) reflects thoughtful methodology.

Apart from that minor consideration, I found very few changes or suggestions to be necessary, and I have attached specific minor comments directly on the PDF to facilitate your review.

Again, congratulations on this important work, which will undoubtedly be a useful reference for future taxonomic and conservation studies in Athysanini and Neotropical Auchenorrhyncha.

Warm regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your great and warm comments on this submission; all suggestions made were considered and addressed in full to enrich the overall context of manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Page 2. Introduction. ‘genus’ misspelled as ‘genu’

Page 2. Abbreviation of the collection is misspelled “USNM” in the text as “USMN”

Dichotomous key, I would suggest adding character describing the shape of the aedeagus apex.

Remarks

The new species is externally very similar to R. rubraviridis but disposition of aedeagal processes is a key distinguishable character between these species.

I understand that this is supposed to be a diagnosis. According to ICZN the diagnosis should point to closely related species and in words describe the characters separating a new taxon from the closely related one (or few). The dichotomous key fulfils the ICZN requirements for the diagnosis. This paragraph either must be modified to be a correct diagnosis or simply removed, because it does not provide any diagnostic information.

I am not sure what it means that the gonoduct is poorly sclerotyped. It is a duct inside of the shaft. What condition would qualify for a strongly sclerotized gonoduct?

Any suggestions about genera closely related to Renonus?

For the genitalia illustration, I would normally expect to see also aedeagus in ventral view.

Author Response

All suggestions were incorporated in full into the revised MS version. The aedeagus in ventral view is not representative due to the quite similar shape in both species, so is committed and lateral view showed clear morphology to separate them.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please see the comments are in attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for detailed comments, all changes were accordingly addressed with the exception of changes to plates.

Answer: 
1. The blue background can be removed because species are pale and get lost with a blank or white background
2. Line drawings overlap photographs to highlight details of contour and minute fine details in structures.