On Brazilian Finger-Net Caddisfly Chimarra Stephens, 1829 (Trichoptera: Philopotamidae), I: Two New Species of Chimarra (Curgia) Walker, 1860 from the Caatinga and Cerrado Biomes, Northeastern Brazil^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors 

Greetings on the discovery of new caddisfly species from Brazil. You have written the descriptions and diagnoses of each species in a perfect and scientific manner. I suggest making the title of your discovery very concise, as I have incorporated it in the file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Title should be concise like "Two new species of Chimarra Stephens, 1829 (Trichoptera: Philopotamidae) from Brazil"

Response 1: Thank you for your concern. However, we respectfully disagree with this suggestion. This manuscript is intended to be the first in a series of articles describing new species of Chimarra. For this reason, we prefer to keep the current format and scope as planned.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written article describing new biodiversity from an underrepresented region, with excellent figures, that helps to fill the taxonomic gap. There are some minor typos/language errors that can be fixed, all of which are indicated in my uploaded PDF; I also made a few suggestions regarding the placement of Table 1 and the map color used in Figure 1.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: 

Response 1: Thank you. We agree. If possible, the Editor can do this.

Comments 2: I'm assuming that the entire region east of the Cerrado biome in light brown on the map is the Caatinga biome, but the dark brown of the legend makes it appear that only the section in the lower portion (near the scale bar) is Caatinga. Can the brown indicating Caatinga in the legend better match the brown indicating Caatinga on the map?

Response 2: Yellow areas correspond to the Cerrado, while the Brown areas represent the Caatinga biome.

Comments 3: "Phallotremal" here, but "phallothremal" in corresponding figure label.

Response 3: We agree with the correction and have revised the figure label to use “Phallotremal” instead of “phallothremal.”

Comments 4: I think you mean "2X taller than long" for the lateral view, not "longer than wide"

Response 4: We agree with the reviewer’s recommendation and have made this correction, as well as all other similar instances throughout the manuscript.

Comments 5: "group", not "Group" - do not capitalize the "g" in each of these species groups

Response 5: We agree and correct.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some minor points that can easily be fixed but one major problem.  Your most interesting taxonomic decision concerns the species group status of your new species but this needs more detailed justification and discussion.  More details in attached file.  Thank you for an interesting read, nice habitat photos.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Lines 35-36. It is not clear which taxon the divergence date refers to, the family or the suborder. I suggest a minor change to “Philopotamidae (finger-net caddisflies), one of the nine families of Annulipalpia, diverged as an independent lineage approximately 160 Ma”

Response 1: Thank you. We agree.

Comment 2:  Line 41. “to the underside of stones” 

Response 2:  Done.

Comment 3:  Line 57. “resurrected” (bring back to life) is the wrong word here. The original ‘life’ of Curgia was as a full genus. Relegated to a subgenus is more correct. 

Response 3: Agree.

Comment 4:  Line 76. It would be helpful to refer to Fig 1a here. 

Response 4: Done.

Comment 5: Lines 145 & 219. Segment length formula seems to be wrong. Segment I is clearly shorter than II and III.

Response 5: We agree and correct.

Comment 6: Line 149. Is “unpigmented” different from “hyaline”? If so explain.

Response 6: Although we initially perceived a difference between the terms, upon closer examination, they refer to the same shade. Therefore, we agree with the suggestion and have adopted the term hyaline throughout the manuscript.

Comment 7: Line 155. I think this would be better described as 2 times deeper than wide. Describing the vertical dimension as length (for an abdominal segment) is potentially confusing.

Response 7: We decided to adopt the terms “taller” and “wider” to ensure greater clarity when referring to vertical and horizontal dimensions, respectively.

Comment 8:  Line 157 and Figure 3. I have trouble reconciling Figures 2A and 2B and the description in the text of tergum VIII. These two figures seem to be at approximately the same scale but tergum VIII appears much longer in B than in A. I cannot see how such a deep anterior cleft could exist in tergum VIII as depicted in part A. Please check that this figure is accurate. 

Response 8: Sorry. The reference to Figure 3B in this line was a mistake, since VIII was not illustrated in dorsal view, but only in lateral view.

Comment 9:  Line 159. If the “large U-shaped cleft” is part of tergum VIII then where is segment IX in Figure 3B? Can it be seen in dorsal view and, if so, where is the distinction between tergum VIII and segment IX in Figure 3B? 

Response 9: Same answer of the previous comment

Comment 10:  Line 166. Subrectangular 

Response 10: Done.

Comment 11:  Line 169, four clusters of spines 

Response 11: Done.

Comment 12:  Line 172 and Figure 3 C&E. Is the structure phallothremal or phallotremal? “Phalotheca” label in Figure 3C should have double l. Same problem in line 243 and Figure 4. The phallothremal sclerite appears to be in very different locations in the two species described here. Is this of significance or is it due to different degree of extension of the phallus in the two specimens. Some comment would be useful. 

Response 12: Corrections were made to the figure labels, standardizing the term to “phallotremal.” However, it is not possible to precisely define the position of the interspecific and intraspecific phallotremal sclerites due to the eversion of the endotheca.

Comment 13:  Line 173. Should this be “a V-shaped apicomesal cleft”? 

Response 13: Yes. Thank you.

Comment 14:  Line 188 et al. What is the abbreviation leg./legs.? In the context it appears to refer to the collector/s. Has this not been translated from Portuguese? 

Response 14: It's not exactly Portuguese. Leg is an abbreviation of a word of Latin origin, meaning "collected by."

Comment 15: Lines 219-20. Only one long stout seta is visible in Figure 4B. Are the others not visible hidden by the other palp) in this image or is this a cut-and-paste error from the other species description 

Response 15: Thank you for your observation. However, this is not a cut-and-paste error. The other stout setae were originally present but appear to have broken off, likely during specimen preparation or handling.

Comment 16:  The difference between “medially excavated” and “having an apicomesal concavity” is not clear to me, but it is crucial to the decision on species-group status and needs more justification. There are 16 species groups but an explanation for non-membership is only offered for one group in each case. Since you are in effect claiming that these two new species are outliers in this subgenus I think you should make the case more completely by refuting all the characters that would be required for inclusion in each of the 16 species groups. You should also explain why you do not propose to widen the definition of any of the existing species groups to allow entry of these new species and also discuss whether these two new species could (or not) form a 17th species group. 

Response 16: In species belonging to the Medioloba group, it is common for tergum X to exhibit a deep mesal excavation, often extending below the average height of the segment. Chimarra opala, in contrast, presents only a very shallow apicomesal concavity. We do not consider it necessary to elaborate further on the diagnostic features of this group, as revising or refining group-level diagnoses is beyond the scope of the present work. Nonetheless, we appreciate your suggestion, which has provided a valuable idea for future research.