Taxonomy of Dissomphalus Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Bethylidae) from Fiji and Solomon Islands, with Description of Twenty-Seven New Species^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

To provide a detailed review of the attached article, I have evaluated it based on the following aspects: scientific content, English language and grammar, structure, clarity, and self-citation rate. Below is a comprehensive peer-review report.

1-Scientific Content

The study provides a significant taxonomic revision, describing 27 new species of Dissomphalus from Fiji and the Solomon Islands, which considerably expands knowledge of the genus in the Oceanian region.

The methodology is robust, using both traditional morphological examination and modern imaging techniques (e.g., Leica microscopes, Helicon Focus software) for species descriptions and illustrations.

The operational species concept is clearly stated, and the use of identification keys from relevant regional faunas is appropriate.

The study is limited to male specimens; females are unknown for all described species. This limitation is acknowledged but should be more explicitly discussed in the context of potential impacts on taxonomic resolution and future research needs.

The use of Fijian mythology for species epithets is culturally sensitive and adds a valuable regional context.

Suggestions for Scientific Content Improvement

Consider providing a comparative table summarizing the main diagnostic features of the new species for easier reference.

Expand the discussion on the biogeographical and conservation implications of the high endemism and species richness found, especially in relation to island biodiversity and potential threats.

If possible, briefly discuss the potential for future molecular analyses to complement the morphological taxonomy, even if not performed in this study.

2-Writing Style

The manuscript follows the conventional structure for taxonomic revisions: Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results (including species descriptions), and Discussion.

The writing is generally clear, concise, and scientifically appropriate for a taxonomic journal.

Some sentences, particularly in the Introduction and Materials and Methods, are long and could be split for improved readability (e.g., lines 31–37, 63–67).

The differential diagnoses are well structured but would benefit from more explicit comparisons with similar species, possibly in tabular format for clarity.

Suggestions for Writing Style Improvement

Shorten complex sentences and break up dense paragraphs to enhance readability, especially for non-native English speakers.

Use parallel structure in species descriptions to maintain consistency across taxa.

3-English Language and Grammar

The English is generally correct, but there are minor grammatical and typographical issues:

Inconsistent use of hyphens and compound adjectives (e.g., "biogeographical regions" vs. "biogeographicalregions").

Occasional awkward phrasing, such as "metasomal segment II with lateral tergal process, with shallow, circular, small depression" (line 114); consider rephrasing for clarity.

Ensure all scientific terms are used consistently throughout (e.g., "coriaceous" vs. "sculptured"; "apical teeth" vs. "distal teeth").

The phrase "Female: Unknown." is repeated for each species; consider a single statement in the methods or results to avoid redundancy.

Suggestions for Language Improvement

Proofread the manuscript for minor grammatical errors and typographical inconsistencies.

Standardize terminology and phrasing in species descriptions and diagnoses.

4-Self-citation rate

The current self-citations is approximately 73%, which is considerably higher than typical standards and may raise concerns regarding citation bias and the completeness of the scholarly context. My assessment is as follows:

Several self-citations are foundational and justified, particularly those related to taxonomic concepts, species-group definitions, and specific methodological protocols developed by the authors.

However, there are multiple instances where self-citations could be replaced or supplemented with independent references, especially in the sections on regional identification keys, imaging techniques, and broader ecological or conservation context.

I advise the authors to critically review each self-citation for necessity, remove or replace those that are not essential, and ensure that the reference list reflects the current state of knowledge in the field.

I believe that implementing these recommendations will significantly reduce the self-citation rate and enhance the manuscript’s scholarly integrity and compliance with COPE and journal guidelines.

Recommendation: With minor revisions to language, formatting, Self-citation rate, and discussion depth, this manuscript should be suitable for publication.

Thank you for considering my feedback.

Best Regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

2-Writing Style

The manuscript follows the conventional structure for taxonomic revisions: Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results (including species descriptions), and Discussion.

The writing is generally clear, concise, and scientifically appropriate for a taxonomic journal.

Some sentences, particularly in the Introduction and Materials and Methods, are long and could be split for improved readability (e.g., lines 31–37, 63–67).

The differential diagnoses are well structured but would benefit from more explicit comparisons with similar species, possibly in tabular format for clarity.

Suggestions for Writing Style Improvement

Shorten complex sentences and break up dense paragraphs to enhance readability, especially for non-native English speakers.

Use parallel structure in species descriptions to maintain consistency across taxa.

3-English Language and Grammar

The English is generally correct, but there are minor grammatical and typographical issues:

Inconsistent use of hyphens and compound adjectives (e.g., "biogeographical regions" vs. "biogeographicalregions").

Occasional awkward phrasing, such as "metasomal segment II with lateral tergal process, with shallow, circular, small depression" (line 114); consider rephrasing for clarity.

Ensure all scientific terms are used consistently throughout (e.g., "coriaceous" vs. "sculptured"; "apical teeth" vs. "distal teeth").

The phrase "Female: Unknown." is repeated for each species; consider a single statement in the methods or results to avoid redundancy.

Suggestions for Language Improvement

Proofread the manuscript for minor grammatical errors and typographical inconsistencies.

Standardize terminology and phrasing in species descriptions and diagnoses.

Author Response

Dear,

Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. We are writing to submit the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Taxonomy of Dissomphalus Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Bethylidae) from Fiji and Solomon Islands, with description of twenty-seven new species”.

We have addressed all comments from the reviewers, including yours, and the changes are marked using Track Changes in the Word document, as follows:

 

Reviewer 01: To provide a detailed review of the attached article, I have evaluated it based on the following aspects: scientific content, English language and grammar, structure, clarity, and self-citation rate. Below is a comprehensive peer-review report.

1. The study is limited to male specimens; females are unknown for all described species. This limitation is acknowledged but should be more explicitly discussed in the context of potential impacts on taxonomic resolution and future research need. We appreciate this observation. As suggested, we have included a specific paragraph addressing the limitation of using only male specimens, the impact of sexual dimorphism on sex association, and the challenges of collecting apterous females with Malaise traps. This discussion has been added in lines 1109–1113 of the revised manuscript.
2. Consider providing a comparative table summarizing the main diagnostic features of the new species for easier reference. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, which is indeed valuable for facilitating interspecific comparisons. However, we opted not to include an additional comparative table, as the dichotomous identification key already fulfills a similar role by organizing diagnostic features in a structured and accessible format. The key highlights the distinguishing characters in a stepwise manner, guiding the user through the most relevant morphological traits for each species. Moreover, the detailed species descriptions and differential diagnoses complement the key by providing targeted comparisons with morphologically similar taxa. Together, these elements were designed to avoid redundancy while maintaining clarity and usability. We believe this integrated approach sufficiently addresses the need for comparative reference without overloading the manuscript with overlapping content.
3. Expand the discussion on the biogeographical and conservation implications of the high endemism and species richness found, especially in relation to island biodiversity and potential threats. Thank you for this important observation. We expanded the discussion to address the biogeographical significance of the findings and their conservation implications, particularly in the context of island endemism and environmental threats. This content has been added in lines 1175–1187 of the revised manuscript.
4. If possible, briefly discuss the potential for future molecular analyses to complement the morphological taxonomy, even if not performed in this study. We agree with the reviewer that incorporating molecular data will be highly valuable for advancing the taxonomy and phylogeny of Dissomphalus. Although molecular analyses were beyond the scope of this study, we have added a paragraph discussing their potential contributions to species delimitation, sex association, and evolutionary inference. This addition can be found in lines 1152–1158 of the revised manuscript.
5. Some sentences, particularly in the Introduction and Materials and Methods, are long and could be split for improved readability (e.g., lines 31–37, 63–67). Done.
6. The differential diagnoses are well structured but would benefit from more explicit comparisons with similar species, possibly in tabular format for clarity. We appreciate this thoughtful suggestion. While we agree that comparative tables can enhance clarity, we chose to maintain the comparative information within the differential diagnoses themselves to preserve a more fluid taxonomic narrative. Each diagnosis was carefully written to highlight key differences from morphologically similar species, prioritizing the most relevant and diagnostic traits. Additionally, the identification key serves as a structured comparative tool, guiding readers through the distinguishing features of each species. We believe this approach ensures clarity without duplicating content or overextending the manuscript length.
7. Shorten complex sentences and break up dense paragraphs to enhance readability, especially for non-native English speakers. We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to clarity. In response, we carefully revised the Discussion section, breaking up dense paragraphs and simplifying long sentences to improve overall readability. These changes aim to make the text more accessible, particularly for non-native English readers, without compromising scientific content. 
8. Use parallel structure in species descriptions to maintain consistency across taxa. Done.
9. Inconsistent use of hyphens and compound adjectives (e.g., "biogeographical regions" vs. "biogeographicalregions").  Thank you for pointing this out. We reviewed the manuscript and did not find inconsistencies in the use of compound adjectives in the original Word file. It is possible that the merging of words (e.g., “biogeographicalregions”) occurred during the PDF conversion process, as sometimes happens with hyphenation or line break rendering. Nonetheless, we carefully revised the text to ensure correct and consistent usage of hyphens where needed, especially in compound modifiers appearing before nouns.
10. Occasional awkward phrasing, such as "metasomal segment II with lateral tergal process, with shallow, circular, small depression" (line 114); consider rephrasing for clarity. Done.
11. Ensure all scientific terms are used consistently throughout (e.g., "coriaceous" vs. "sculptured"; "apical teeth" vs. "distal teeth"). Done.
12. The phrase "Female: Unknown." is repeated for each species; consider a single statement in the methods or results to avoid redundancy. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and understand the concern regarding repetition. However, we chose to retain the phrase “Female: Unknown.” in each species description for the sake of completeness and clarity. In taxonomic works, it is customary to explicitly state the absence of female specimens within each diagnosis to avoid ambiguity, especially when descriptions are later consulted independently from the rest of the manuscript. This approach ensures that each species account is fully self-contained and unambiguous for future reference.
13. The current self-citations is approximately 73%, which is considerably higher than typical standards and may raise concerns regarding citation bias and the completeness of the scholarly context. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the proportion of self-citations. Prior to submission, we had already revised the manuscript to reduce citation bias by limiting redundant references to our previous work and incorporating relevant studies from other authors. We ensured that all remaining self-citations are essential for taxonomic comparison, regional context, or methodological consistency, and that they reflect the current state of knowledge in the group under study. We believe the current citation balance maintains scholarly integrity while supporting the scientific framework of the manuscript.

 

 

Please let me know if you have any further comments or concerns.

Best regards,

 

João Lorenzo Mendes Nunes

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the present manuscript, the authors describe 27 new species of Dissomphalus (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) from Fiji and the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific. The descriptions are accompanied by a key to the newly described species and absolutely beautiful image plates.

This manuscript is an incredibly important contribution to our understanding of global Bethylid diversity, and the presentation and quality of the new species descriptions is sufficient for publication. However, the authors make mention of 91 previously described species of Dissomphalus from Indonesian New Guinea and Papua New Guinea (Mugrabi et al, 2016). Given the relative proximity of these regions to Fiji and the Soloman Islands. I think it is necessary to revise the species of this region as a whole. This minimally means comparing the material in this study to that collected as a part of Mugrabi et al., providing comprehensive diagnostics, and a key to species of the region. Without assessing the already described material this cannot be marketed as a revision of the genus.

Author Response

Dear,

Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. We are writing to submit the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Taxonomy of Dissomphalus Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Bethylidae) from Fiji and Solomon Islands, with description of twenty-seven new species”.

We have addressed all comments from the reviewers, including yours, and the changes are marked using Track Changes in the Word document, as follows:

Reviewer 02: In the present manuscript, the authors describe 27 new species of Dissomphalus (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) from Fiji and the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific. The descriptions are accompanied by a key to the newly described species and absolutely beautiful image plates.

1. This manuscript is an incredibly important contribution to our understanding of global Bethylid diversity, and the presentation and quality of the new species descriptions is sufficient for publication. However, the authors make mention of 91 previously described species of Dissomphalus from Indonesian New Guinea and Papua New Guinea (Mugrabi et al, 2016). Given the relative proximity of these regions to Fiji and the Soloman Islands. I think it is necessary to revise the species of this region as a whole. This minimally means comparing the material in this study to that collected as a part of Mugrabi et al., providing comprehensive diagnostics, and a key to species of the region. Without assessing the already described material this cannot be marketed as a revision of the genus. We fully agree with the reviewer on the importance of considering nearby faunas, particularly from New Guinea, when describing new species from adjacent island systems. Although our study is not a full regional revision including Papua New Guinea, we did examine and compare our material with the available diagnoses and illustrations from Mugrabi et al. (2016) to avoid redundancy and to ensure proper delimitation of the new species. To clarify this point, we have updated the methodology section to state explicitly that the species described herein were compared with previously published taxa from the Oceanian region, including those from New Guinea, and that detailed comparisons were made with morphologically similar species. However, as the present study focuses specifically on material from Fiji and the Solomon Islands, and no specimens from New Guinea were directly examined, a comprehensive revision of Dissomphalus for the entire region was beyond the scope of this paper. We believe the current work provides a solid and well-delimited contribution to the taxonomy of Oceanian Dissomphalus, while leaving room for future studies to address broader regional revisions.

 

 

Please let me know if you have any further comments or concerns.

Best regards,

 

João Lorenzo Mendes Nunes

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors update is a step in the correct direction for this manuscript. However, it remains an incomplete study. It is not sufficient to state that "species described herein were compared with previously published taxa from the Oceanian region" those comparisons are essential to the utility of the paper. As this is not a full region treatment, I think it is acceptable to exclude extralimital taxa from the key and not "re-treat" the extralimital taxa. However, since the authors have already performed the necessary comparisons with other regional taxa, those comparisons should written explicitly in the comments section beneath newly described species where applicable. This will greatly enhance the utility of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your valuable comment. In response to your suggestion, we have now included, at the end of each species description, a subsection titled “Comparison with Oceanian congeners”. In this section, we explicitly present the comparisons between the newly described species and previously published Dissomphalus species from the region, highlighting key diagnostic characters that distinguish them. We believe this addition makes the species descriptions more informative and useful for readers and specialists, and it strengthens the taxonomic conclusions of the study.

Thank you again for your constructive feedback, 

All the best,
João Lorenzo Mendes Nunes