Heptophylla gongshana Bezděk & Král, n. sp. from China (Yunnan) and a Checklist of the Tribe Heptophyllini (Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae)†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, please find below a few brief comments.
Coments
- I would suggest that the introduction include at least a brief paragraph on the taxonomic history of the genus Heptophylla, as it represents the only genus within Heptophyllini in which you are proposing the description of a new species. Such context would strengthen the rationale and relevance of the study.
- The study could be further enhanced by the inclusion of distribution maps of the analyzed material. Even though all specimens were collected from a single locality (in the case of the new species), the genus as a whole exhibits a restricted distribution, and in some cases, only scarce records are available in the literature. A visual representation of this information would provide important context, and it is precisely the kind of valuable contribution that can best be achieved by researchers working in, or close to, East Asia. Including maps could be a valuable addition, as it would enrich the discussion and enhance the overall contribution of the study.
Results (line 64) - For the plates illustrating the new species, it might be particularly useful to include a ventral view. In addition, it could be advantageous to prepare separate plates: one for the male, with photographs of the genitalia, and another for the female with dimorphic characters.
3.1. Description of a new species (line 65)
Antennae (line 91).
- Perhaps the term “macrosetaceous” (line 95) could be substituted with a more intuitive expression. (or description), in order to facilitate understanding. As I interpret it, the reference is to the large setae on the antennal lamellae, though this was not immediately clear. A simpler wording would likely make the description more accessible to a broader readership.
- The description of the “Terminal maxillary palpomere” (lines 95, 96 and 97) is currently included in the section on the antenna. For greater consistency, it might be clearer to relocate it to the section on the head, or alternatively to establish a separate section for the mouthparts.
Checklist of genera and species currently classified in Heptophyllini.
In - Heptophylla longilamella Y.-W. Zhang, 1981 (line 234)
- At this point, it is somewhat unclear whether you are proposing Heptophylla picea Motschulsky, 1857 as a synonym of this other species, or whether this synonymy was established by Zhang (1981). Clarification would be useful, particularly as the species is currently listed as valid in the Catalogue of Life database.
- It might be worth noting that the species names in lines 238, 239, 242, 243, and 246 are not italicized, and adjusting this would improve consistency with taxonomic conventions.
- Other names that are not italicized appear in lines; 275, 280, 286, 294, 299, 305, 310, 328, 329, 353, 356, 357, 369, 370, 374, 378, 382, 385, 386, 390, 394, 398, 401, 402, 409, 410, 415, 418, 419, 422, 423, 434, 448, 455, 457, 461, 463, 471, 476.
Finally, the organization of the reference list is not entirely clear. Would it not be more appropriate to arrange it in alphabetical order?
Kind regards,
Author Response
Comment 1: I would suggest that the introduction include at least a brief paragraph on the taxonomic history of the genus Heptophylla, as it represents the only genus within Heptophyllini in which you are proposing the description of a new species. Such context would strengthen the rationale and relevance of the study.
Response 1: we agree with the comment. We added a paragraph dealing with history of Heptophylla into the introduction.
Comment 2: - The study could be further enhanced by the inclusion of distribution maps of the analyzed material. Even though all specimens were collected from a single locality (in the case of the new species), the genus as a whole exhibits a restricted distribution, and in some cases, only scarce records are available in the literature. A visual representation of this information would provide important context, and it is precisely the kind of valuable contribution that can best be achieved by researchers working in, or close to, East Asia. Including maps could be a valuable addition, as it would enrich the discussion and enhance the overall contribution of the study.
Response 2: We do not fully agree with the comment. There are 4 species treated in detail in the manuscript, each of them is known from the type series only. Particular localities are far from each other. The map is in our opinion superfluous.
Comment 3: For the plates illustrating the new species, it might be particularly useful to include a ventral view. In addition, it could be advantageous to prepare separate plates: one for the male, with photographs of the genitalia, and another for the female with dimorphic characters.
Response 3: We do not agree with the comment. Ventral side of the body does not bear any important diagnostic character in Heptophylla. And that is why, we would to maintain current arrangement of the plates.
Comment 4: - Perhaps the term “macrosetaceous” (line 95) could be substituted with a more intuitive expression. (or description), in order to facilitate understanding. As I interpret it, the reference is to the large setae on the antennal lamellae, though this was not immediately clear. A simpler wording would likely make the description more accessible to a broader readership.
Response 4: We do not agree with the comment. The morphological term macroseta (macrosetaceous) is commonly used in beetle descriptions and refer to setae that are conspicuous and, unlike microsetae, possess a distinct basal rim.
Comment 5: The description of the “Terminal maxillary palpomere” (lines 95, 96 and 97) is currently included in the section on the antenna. For greater consistency, it might be clearer to relocate it to the section on the head, or alternatively to establish a separate section for the mouthparts.
Response 5: We agree with the comment. The entire paragraph containing information on the antennae and maxillary palps has been newly titled “Head appendages.”
Comment 6: - At this point, it is somewhat unclear whether you are proposing Heptophylla picea Motschulsky, 1857 as a synonym of this other species, or whether this synonymy was established by Zhang (1981). Clarification would be useful, particularly as the species is currently listed as valid in the Catalogue of Life database.
Response 6: we fully agree with the comment. This error is a matter of wrong arrangement of the original word file into the layout of Taxonomy journal. There were several similar errors in the checklist, all of them are corrected now.
Comment 7: It might be worth noting that the species names in lines 238, 239, 242, 243, and 246 are not italicized, and adjusting this would improve consistency with taxonomic conventions. Other names that are not italicized appear in lines; 275, 280, 286, 294, 299, 305, 310, 328, 329, 353, 356, 357, 369, 370, 374, 378, 382, 385, 386, 390, 394, 398, 401, 402, 409, 410, 415, 418, 419, 422, 423, 434, 448, 455, 457, 461, 463, 471, 476.
Response 7: we fully agree with the comment. This error is of the same origin as the previous one in Comment 6. We corrected the whole checklist (chapter 3.3.)
Comment 8: Finally, the organization of the reference list is not entirely clear. Would it not be more appropriate to arrange it in alphabetical order?
Response 8: We do not agree with the comment. Such arrangement is (unfortunately) in accordance with authors guide in Taxonomy.
Comment 9: Linguistic revision is needed.
Response 9: we agree with the comment. We now used professional software Instatext for the correction and improvement of our English.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is relevant for publication, and a few suggestions follow:
1. Change the title and omit the species name, cite the description of a new species of Heptophylla.
2. A diagnosis for the species is necessary.
3. Which specimen is the holotype and what is its identification label?
4. some names on the checklist are not in italics
5. the species that make up the checklist are deposited in the museums visited? or is there data literature? it would be interesting to record the origin of the data in the methodology
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: 1. Change the title and omit the species name, cite the description of a new species of Heptophylla.
Response 1: We do not agree. It is better for readers to see the name of the new species directly in the title.
Comment 2: A diagnosis for the species is necessary.
Response 2: We agree with the comment. A new paragraph "Diagnosis" was added into the description (pp. 2-3 of the word file)
Comment 3: Which specimen is the holotype and what is its identification label?
Response 3: We do not agree with the comment. The designation of the holotype is clear from the manuscript. The holotype is clearly designated in the type material section, its holotype identification label is available from the Material and Methods. Moreover, holotype is figured (Fig. 1) as well as its type labels (Fig. 6A).
Comment 4: some names on the checklist are not in italics
Response 4: We agree with the comment. Formal arrangement of the whole checklist (chapter 3.3) was improved.
Comment 5: The species that make up the checklist are deposited in the museums visited? or is there data literature? it would be interesting to record the origin of the data in the methodology.
Response 5: We agree with the comment. An explanatory sentence was added into Material and Methods.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors clearly demonstrated which morphological characters distinguish the new species from other species of the same genus.
The upper part of the holotype's right leg is not visible in the image. Probably broken. They could have chosen a different paratype instead of holotype. Discretion belongs to the authors.
Author Response
Comment 1: The upper part of the holotype's right leg is not visible in the image. Probably broken. They could have chosen a different paratype instead of holotype. Discretion belongs to the authors.
Response 1. We agree with the comment. But none of males from the type series is complete ... So, we selected the most complete male as a holotype.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssee attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Abstract. In the current version it is really very short and poorly informative for the reader. It should be
extended, i.e. at least including a more adequate comparison with one or more closely related species and
conclusions in much detail.
Response 1: We agree with this comment. Therefore we extended the abstract to be more informative.
Comment 2: line 42. "We have also compiled an up-to-date checklist of taxa currently assigned to the
Heptophyllini". It would be very useful to specify whether this is the first complete checklist of this tribe.
Most evidence of this datum is important in increasing the level of interest of the paper (in the abstract
too).
Response 2: We agree with the comment. This is the first complete checklist of the tribe Heptophyllini. Previous version was published by Bezděk in 2016, but it included only Palaearctic taxa. This is clear from the title of the chapter 3.3
Comment 3: lines 91-92. Deca-merous, octo-merous etc. All the dashes must be deleted.
Response 3: We agree with the comment. And all the dashes were deleted.
Comment 4: In part of the checklist the single taxa are rightly separated from each other by a space, but not in others
(e.g. from line 234... and from line 343....). Moreover, please better control the use of bold-type and italic
fonts (e.g. Melichrus calcaratus Frey vs. Melichrus flavescens Y.-W. Zhang etc.).
Response 4: We agree with the comment. This was probably a problem of transfer of our original word file into the layout of Taxonomy journal. Whole checklist (chapter 3.3) was carefully corrected for italics and bold characters.
Comment 5: line 496. "classiffied". Please correct.
Response 5: We agree with the comment. This typographic error was corrected.
