A Revised Checklist and Identification Key for Acotylean Flatworms (Rhabditophora: Polycladida: Acotylea) from the Caribbean Coast of Colombia
, D. Marcela Bolaños 2, Lyda R. Castro 1,3,4 and Sigmer Quiroga 1,4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for your hard work. This study provides an updated list of acotylean flatworm species from the Caribbean coast of Colombia, based on the accurate identification of specimens collected during current and previous faunal surveys. The study increases the number of acotylean species from 13 to 22, and provides molecular information for some species. This work should lay an important foundation for revealing the polyclad fauna of the Atlantic Ocean and extending to other fields.
I have only a few minor comments:
- In your results, you did not always compare your newly generated sequences with those of the same species that had been determined previously. As you generated DNA barcodes, it would be helpful to provide information on the degree of sequence identity within the same species.
- The direction of the specimens is unclear in some photographs showing the eyespot arrangement. I suppose the left sides are directed anteriorly, but this should be mentioned somewhere for clarity.
You will find all the other comments in the attached PDF.
I hope my comments will be useful for your dedicated work.
Sincerely
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is interesting from an ecological perspective and its potential applications for identifying marine flatworm species. However, this aspect is rarely addressed in the discussion, as it is very poor, and the molecular aspect, which is also included in the results, is not addressed much. The manuscript as currently presented has little support, considering that GenBank sequences and accession numbers must be included, as they are not being submitted for COI. It is somewhat disappointing that italics were not used correctly for abbreviations in some scientific names and that taxonomic authorities were not included.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has improved greatly compared to the previous version, and the requested changes have been addressed.
