Taxonomic Revision of Pygmy Devil Genera Almacris, Ginixistra, Tegotettix, and Xistra, with Comments on Xistrella (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae)^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the paper: “Taxonomic revision of pygmy devil genera Almacris gen. nov., Ginixistra gen. nov., Tegotettix, Xistra and Xistrella (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae)”

By

Josip Skejo, Niko Kasalo, Romeo R. Patano Jr., Sergey Yu. Storozhenko, Josef Tumbrinck, Tomislav Domazet-Lošo, Victor B. Amoroso, Sheryl A. Yap & Jadranka Škorput

 

General comments

• A map of the discussed areas would facilitate the reader.
• The taxa discovered and the entire document are very well described in such a way that facilitates the reader, and more importantly, they encourage automatic identification of insects.

 

 

1. 113: What does CMU mean? It might be the symbols for Central Mindanao University.
2. 121 & L. 125: Session 2.5 is missing. Possibly the deletion of this session necessitated the renumbering of the remaining sessions.
3. 587: The deleted text is a speculation and not the result of an analysis.
4. 604: Please change the word ‘a bit’. I suggest ‘slightly’. The same is true for the word ‘strongly’.
5. 618-619: They are related to the genus Xistra but do not belong to it.
6. 15: The letter a is lacking from the figure.
7. 16: Please rewrite the legend.
8. 18c: The illustration does not show how mating is done in terms of the position of mates.
9. 889: The evolutionary hypotheses in this text unit are not discussed apart from the associated speculations.
10. 891-892: The term ‘neotenic’ cannot be used in this place since it comes as a product of speculation. The neoteny term is used in cases where a juvenile (presumably a larva) retains morphological characters into adulthood. The authors do not explicitly define what the retained characters are and how they or another cited work came to these. Also, it is a speculation that ‘Almacris alleochroa evolved from a Mazarredia-like ancestor’ and the invoked characters are not shown in an illustration.
11. 907-910: This period seems to defy the evolution of A. alleochroa.
12. 915-928: The entire paragraph is expected to confuse the reader. The authors seem to ignore that only the taxonomic level ‘species’ has biological meaning and that the ‘genus’ and ‘subgenus’  are purely artificial, serving only the discussions about a taxon.
13. 951-952: The authors state that the tribe Xistrellini is statistically significant (97.4/99), but “unresolved generic boundaries indicate many taxonomic issues”. I cannot understand how statistical compactness contributes to boundaries.
14. 737: Please, instead of “latral” write “lateral”. In taxonomic texts, every word should be checked.
15. 14: Since there is a holotype then what syntype specimen means?
16. 910-911: What taxonomic hypotheses could be solved with nymphal morphology? The authors mean that the already-confronted hypotheses in this manuscript?

It is desirable that the quality of the photographs should be improved, possibly by using arrows or other pointers to indicate the morphological structure discussed.

In general, the manuscript is well written by known experts in the field, and it deserves publication in the Taxonomy journal. It is expected that the paper can help many entomologists and Orthoptera enthusiasts in the field.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. We have now changed the title into “Taxonomic revision of pygmy devil genera Almacris, Ginixistra, Tegotettix, and Xistra, with comments on Xistrella (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae)” as we do not deal with Xistrella revision in detail, but only briefly.

 

Reviewer: General comments: A map of the discussed areas would facilitate the reader.

Reply: Thank you for the suggestion, we have incorporated the map showing distribution of all mentioned genera.

 

Reviewer: General comments: The taxa discovered and the entire document are very well described in such a way that facilitates the reader, and more importantly, they encourage automatic identification of insects.

Reply: Thank you very much for your kind words.

 

Reviewer: 113: What does CMU mean? It might be the symbols for Central Mindanao University.

Reply: Yes, indeed, it is Central Mindanao University. Thank you for your comment. It is expected that you find it confusing, but abbreviations are in this journal listed just before the references.

 

Reviewer: 121 & L. 125: Session 2.5 is missing. Possibly the deletion of this session necessitated the renumbering of the remaining sessions.

Reply: Thank you very much for noting this. We have corrected the remaining sessions.

 

Reviewer: 587: The deleted text is a speculation and not the result of an analysis.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have shortened „Composition and distribution“ paragraph for Xistra and moved it after the section where we assign species to Xistrella instead of Xistra.

 

Reviewer: 604: Please change the word ‘a bit’. I suggest ‘slightly’. The same is true for the word ‘strongly’.

Reply: Thank you, we have changed it into the word „slightly“. We have also changed word „strongly“ into „distrinctly“, and „conspicuously“, respectedly.

 

Reviewer: 618-619: They are related to the genus Xistra but do not belong to it.

Reply: Thank you, we have corrected the sentence.

 

Reviewer: Fig. 15: The letter a is lacking from the figure.

Reply: Thank you, we have added the lacking letter.

 

Reviewer: Fig. 16: Please rewrite the legend.

Reply: Thank you for the comment, but we have found no errors on the legend.

 

Reviewer: 18c: The illustration does not show how mating is done in terms of the position of mates.

Reply: Thank you. It is true, so we have added in brackets next to the description (not mating).

 

Reviewer: 889: The evolutionary hypotheses in this text unit are not discussed apart from the associated speculations.

Reply: Thank you for the comment. We have ammened the discussion part on non-binary trats in a way that we have added one sentence in each paragraph.

 

Reviewer: 891-892: The term ‘neotenic’ cannot be used in this place since it comes as a product of speculation. The neoteny term is used in cases where a juvenile (presumably a larva) retains morphological characters into adulthood. The authors do not explicitly define what the retained characters are and how they or another cited work came to these. Also, it is a speculation that ‘Almacris alleochroa evolved from a Mazarredia-like ancestor’ and the invoked characters are not shown in an illustration.

Reply: Thank you very much for your comment.  We have edited the paragraph so it clearly shows which sentences are speculative (neoteny), and which are supported by our and early literature findings.

 

Reviewer: 907-910: This period seems to defy the evolution of A. alleochroa.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have rephrased the whole paragraaph.

 

Reviewer: 915-928: The entire paragraph is expected to confuse the reader. The authors seem to ignore that only the taxonomic level ‘species’ has biological meaning and that the ‘genus’ and ‘subgenus’  are purely artificial, serving only the discussions about a taxon.

Reply: Thank you for the comment. We have removed the paragraph.

 

Reviewer: 951-952: The authors state that the tribe Xistrellini is statistically significant (97.4/99), but “unresolved generic boundaries indicate many taxonomic issues”. I cannot understand how statistical compactness contributes to boundaries.

Reply: Thank you, we have removed the part „Unresolved generic boundaries within the tribe and lack of comparative studies led to many existing taxonomic issues.“

 

Reviewer: 737: Please, instead of “latral” write “lateral”. In taxonomic texts, every word should be checked.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: 14: Since there is a holotype then what syntype specimen means?

Reply: Thank you, corrected.

 

Reviewer: 910-911: What taxonomic hypotheses could be solved with nymphal morphology? The authors mean that the already-confronted hypotheses in this manuscript?

Reply: Thank you for your comments. We have now stated more clearly that if more information is available on nymphal morphology, by detailed comparison of the nymphs and their morphology, we can make conclusions on which genera are likely related.

 

Reviewer: It is desirable that the quality of the photographs should be improved, possibly by using arrows or other pointers to indicate the morphological structure  discussed.

Reply: Thank you very much for you comment, but unfortunately for many species wee deal only with old photographs and the presented photos are the best we have. However, the quality can be improved by adding arrows in important places for important traits (e.g. mentioned in the key), and we have done it.

 

Reviewer: In general, the manuscript is well written by known experts in the field, and it deserves publication in the Taxonomy journal. It is expected that the paper can help many entomologists and Orthoptera enthusiasts in the field.

Reply: Thank you very much for your constructive review and kind words.

 

 

Manuscript is now significantly reviewed and parts of the Introduction, Material and methods, Results, and Discussion are changed for better. Figures are now improved so they clearly show the measurements and the diagnostic traits. We hope that we clearly addressed all the reviewer's comments, suggestions and recommendations. Thank you very much for the thorough review that significantly improved our manuscript scientifically, methodologically, and that contributed to the clarity of our study. If you have any more questions, we will gladly address them.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript proposes multiple taxonomic changes for Tetrigidae mainly from the Philippines archipelago and mainland Asia. These changes involve description of 3 new species, 1 new subgenus, 2 new genera, 1 new tribe and more than 20 new or resurrected combinations. I acknowledge that the authors are facing a complex group of grasshoppers, and their extensive work could be a significant contribution to the taxonomy of Tetrigidae. However, I've also identified several aspects of the manuscript that require further clarification and careful revision to ensure a more robust and well-supported taxonomic output. Below, I provide a detailed list of section-specific comments to support my recommendations.

Abstract

Lines 38-40. The emphasis on this conclusion is disproportionate, especially when a more conservative tone is adopted in the discussion section regarding this new tribe. This sentence also gives the impression that the study, per se, used molecular data to estimate the tribe's probable origin. I suggest rephrase this part to adopt a more conservative tone and clearly indicate that your morphological data support previous molecular phylogenetic inferences.

Introducciton
Major issues:

Given that the “main focus” of the study is the genus Xistra (as stated by the authors in lines 46-47), one would expect to find a clear, succinct and comprehensive overview of the taxonomic history of this taxon. However, the authors only provide a brief overview lacking many important aspects that complicate understanding the current taxonomy of the group. For example:

1. The total number of species (and their names) currently comprising Xistra is not provided. This information is also relevant to include at least for the principal taxonomic studies in the genus. How many species were recognized by Bolivar, Hancock, Gunther, etc.?
2. A brief explanation of why the species recognized by Hancock were transferred to different genera by others is necessary. These taxonomic changes must also be added to Table 1, which only includes 12 taxa without clear justification. What happen with the other species of Xistra? Why that information is omitted?
3. The authors note that Günther (1935-1942) made various taxonomic changes “without adequate explanation (lines 72-74)”, but they do not provide their rationale for this view. Please, briefly explain why Günther’s changes lack adequate explanation?
4. The authors emphasize the work of Patano and Colleges (2021) as a fundamental one for the taxonomy of Xistra and Tegotettix, but this work is not included in Table 1. Why?
5. If Patano and Colleges (2021) noted that Tegotettix (cristiferus) and T. (armatus) species groups “… clearly belonged to different genera”, why these previous authors did not elevate these species groups to the genus level? Please briefly explain.
6. In lines 82-85, the authors indicate that the genus Xistra has been “…filled with different unrelated species (Table 1)”, but in Table 1, is not evident which “unrelated” species were transferred to Xistra. Please clarify or correct.
7. The introduction also lacks an explanation for Xistra's complex and seemingly chaotic taxonomic history. Is this due to a lack of a clear taxonomic definition, because previous studies focused heavily on highly variable characters, or is it something else entirely? Providing this information might also help to more firmly ground the first objective of the study (“to define Xistra based on the type species and species closely related to it and exclude the species not belonging to this genus”).
8. The introduction also lacks a clear connection and transition between the need of a taxonomic revision of the genus Xistra and the revision (and erection) of the other taxa.
9. Overall, I recommend providing a more comprehensive but succinct taxonomic overview of the genus Xistra. This, besides illustrating the complex taxonomic history of the genus, might also help to understand why other genera, tribes and even subfamilies of Tetrigidae are considered (or mentioned) in this study.

Minor issues:

1. The complete reference of Cigliano et al. 2025 is not included in the referecen list.
2. Line 57: Rephrase “Species Hancock assigned” to “The species Hancock assigned” for grammatical correctness.
3. Table 1 (first column, second row): Change “Xistra Gogorzae” to “Xistra gogorzae”.
4. Recommendation: specify the type of data you used and simply the first objective, for example: “… to define Xistra based on morphological comparisons of the type species and its closely related species”.

Materials and methods

Major issues:
Relevant information and details regarding nature and provenance of the analyzed material is omitted. For example:

1. No information is provided about the nature and quantity of samples analyzed for the all the studied taxa, except the new genus Almacris. In section “2.1” the authors describe only how fieldwork was conducted for Almacris, but they do not indicate if this methodology also applies for other taxa.
2. The authors must explicitly indicate if they were able to physically revise type material of previously described taxa, or if comparisons were based on specimens collected in type localities or on photographs of type species alone. This clarification is crucial because the authors are proposing various taxonomic changes (e.g., nearly all currently recognized species of Xistra are transferred to Xistrella by the authors) that might lack support if they were unable to revise type material.
3. In section 2.1., the authors indicate that specimens of Almacris “…were collected through hand picking along the established transect covering all vegetation of the mountain.” (lines 102-103), but they do not provide relevant information regarding the use of this method, such as the length, the altitudinal range and extreme geographic coordinates of this transect (or at least a map depicting the location of the transect within Mindanao). Please, provide that information along with the name of “the mountain” in this section.
4. In section 2.6 the authors provide a list of measurements, but they do not justify why nor explain how these metrics were taken. Are these standard measurements for Tetrigidae? Did you use a digital caliper or stereoscope with camera to do it? Please explain briefly.

Minor issues:

1. Specify the equipment used to take photos of live and mounted specimens.
2. What do HT and PT stand for? Please explain all abreviation in the main text at first use (line 112).
3. Recommendation: consider moving the “abbreviations” section to the methods section to allow familiarizing with them before they appear in this and the subsequent sections.
4. Recommendation: use abbreviations only for depository institution names (which involve multiple words) and not for kinds of types (lectotype, holotype, etc. which involve a single word). This may facilitate reading of taxonomic treatments and tables.
5. Recommendation: change “were also noted.” for “were also recorded.” (line 108).
6. Recommendation: consolidate all text of section “2.1” (lines 98-110) as a single paragraph.
7. Recommendation: Include a figure showing how measurements were taken.

 

Results
Major issues:

The taxonomic treatments are heterogenous among taxa and sometimes incomplete. For example:

1. Both “diagnosis” and “description” is provided for the new taxon Almacris alleochroa, while only “diagnosis” is prodived for the other new species described in this study (G. davorkae and G. novaebritanniae). A description (or definition) section is mandatory for all new species according with article 13.1.1 of the ICZN.
2. Similarly, the authors provide "Diagnoses" for all other taxa, but these are sometimes incomplete. Some of them fail to consider the most similar or closely related taxa (Ginixistra, Tegotettix and Xistrellini), and in some instances, they function more as descriptions or definitions rather than true diagnoses (Xistra).
3. In many cases, different names are given to the same elements of taxonomic treatments (e.g., Type depository, Type specimen depository, and Type material depository; Type material or Type series; HT description or descriptive diagnosis). Moreover, some of these sections are provided for some taxa but omitted for others (e.g., the taxonomic treatments of the new genera Ginixistra and Almacris lack the “composition and distribution” section that is given for Tegotettix and Xistra; “Habitat and ecology” is also missing for most species). Lastly, some elements not always follow the same order (e.g. etymology sometimes is after “Subfamily assignment”, others after “Type depository”).
   
   

General recommendations:

1. Overall, I urged authors to incorporate the missing sections and homogenize the elements of taxonomic treatments (between taxa in the same taxonomic level). Authors also are strongly encouraged to meticulously review the main text, tables, and figures. Many details—including abbreviation usage, information omissions, and repeated words—currently undermine the extensive work they've accomplished.
2. Use similar, simple names for the main sections of taxonomic treatments (e.g., “Type depository” instead of “Type specimen depository”; “Description” instead of “HT description or descriptive diagnosis”).
3. Keep “Composition” and “Distribution” as separate sections and, when possible, provide a brief description of how species distribute (elevation range, type of vegetation or substrate, open or forested areas, number or records) and when they can be found (or when they have been collected) in given country, island or mountain.
4. Multiple taxonomic treatments include a “Note” section or multiple “Notes” sections (e.g., taxonomic treatment of Xistra). I recommend use “Taxonomic remarks” instead of “Note” or “Notes on …”.
5. Names of same depositories are provided in different ways (e.g., “Coll. Tumbrinck”, “Josef Tumbrinck Collection”), sometimes the explanation of the abbreviation is given (line 430), while omitted for others (line 425, “NMW”). Homogenize the way you refer to depositories.
6. Sometimes abbreviations are used for specifying kinds of type specimens (see Figure 1 title), but other times the full word is used (see Figure 7 title). Homogenize the way you refer to different kinds of type specimens.

Comments on specific taxonomic treatments:

Almacris gen. nov.

• The authors suggest a close relationship between Almacris and Mazarredia in the discussion section, but this relationship is neglected, here, in the “descriptive diagnosis” of the genus. In fact, this section provides only a short description of the genus, without explaining how the genus differs from its most similar or most closely related taxon (i.e., a diagnosis). Please, include a diagnosis.

Almacris alleochroa sp. nov.

• In lines 257-258: “Antegenicular tooth weak, genicular strong. Outer…”. Explain which genicular structure is “strong” or what you mean by “genicular strong”.
• Recommendation: change “Coloration (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4)” for “Coloration (Figures 1- 4)”.
  Specify the sex of live individuals displayed in figures 2 to 4.
• Recommendation: In “Measurements” section (lines 298 – 305), provide all measurements in a table, same as for the other species in the study.

Ginixistra gen. nov.

• In the diagnosis, the authors compare this genus with other similar genera, Tegotettix and Xistra, but make no comparison with the other genera of the same tribe, Exanimus and Fijixistra (probably the most closely related taxa to this new genus according with the authors). Authors should incorporate a short comparison between Ginixistra and other Exanimini genera.
• Recommendation: change “Note on the taxonomic arrangement of the genus” for “Taxonomic remarks”.

Ginixistra davorkae sp. nov.

• The two notes (in lines 455-457 and 471-475) provided essentially the same information. Consolidate both in a single “Taxonomic remarks” section. 

Ginixistra novaebritanniae sp. nov.

• Redundant information in lines 483 and 489. Consolidate in a single “Type depository” section.
• Recommendation: Include headings for Specimens, Locality, Depository within Table 2.

Genus Tegotettix

• Diagnosis: Revise wording of the sentence “Typical Discotettiginae genus, characteristic in lack of spiky lateral lobes” and explain where the “spiky lateral lobes” are lacking.
• The authors are proposing a significant reduction in the number of species within Tegotettix. This requires a clear redefinition of the genus concept, distinct from the diagnosis section, to accompany such a proposition.
• In Table 3, depositories are listed before specimen localities, while Table 2 presents this information in the opposite order. Please homogenize the order of this information across all similar tables.

Genus Xistra

• Incorrect “Subfamily assignment”: According with the Orthoptera Species File (2025), this genus belongs to subfamily Metrodorinae. Correct this information.
• A section with a clear “Redefinition” of the genus Xistra is required, given the multiple taxonomic changes the authors are proposing for this genus (e.g., most current species of the genus are transferred to Xistrella and species of Tegottetix are transferred to Xistra).
• The diagnosis of this genus must also include the differences between species of Xistra (here recognized) and those transferred to the genus Xistrella by the autors.
• Recommendation: consolidate the sections “Species transferred from Xistra to Xistrella.” and “Notes on the diagnoses of Xistra and its subgenera” into a single “Taxonomic remarks” section before the Identification key for species of Xistra.
• The authors state that Xistra “species from mainland Asia do not belong to this genus, but instead to Xistrella … (lines 583-584)”, and that the “Genus Xistra is endemic to the Philippines and to Borneo and does not inhabit mainland Asia (lines 607-608)”. However, they do not provide an explanation or supporting evidence (morphological, ecological, or genetic) for this significant taxonomic proposition. This omission is particularly notable given their early criticism of Günther's taxonomic changes for lacking “adequate explanation”. In the absence of proper justification and empirical support, these “transferred” species should remain classified under the genus Xistra. The authors can express their belief (in taxonomic remarks) that these mainland species likely don't belong to Xistra but also should acknowledge that additional information is required to resolve this.

Xistra (Tegoxistra) derijei comb. nov.

• Recommendation: the information provided in the section “New records of Xistra (Tegoxistra) derijei comb. nov. Xistra derijei comb. nov.” should be included under the “Distribution” section.
• Table 4. Why information about locality of measured specimens is not provided? Please include that information as you did for previous species.

Tribe Xistrellini

• The “diagnosis” of this tribe can be used as description or a definition of the tribe.
• A “dianosis” pointing out the differences between the new tribe and its closely related or more similar tribes is lacking.
• Recommendation: Move the "Phylogenetic note" content to the Discussion section, where it can be more effectively integrated and analyzed regarding this taxon.

 

Discussion

Please address the following comments and questions:

1. The first four paragraphs (section 4.1; lines 863-885) discussing characters employed by Günther for transferring Xistra species to Tegotettix would benefit from consolidation into a single succinct paragraph. Adding a clear concluding statement on the implications of this information is also crucial, as its relevance to the current study (or in the discussion) is unclear.
2. Moreover, the authors should address: Why only Gunther’s results are discussed? How do the findings of the present study compare to those of other more recent previous works, such as Patano et al. (2021)? If Günther's characters lack taxonomic utility, what specific characters are recommended for higher-level classification of Xistra species and related taxa? (I assume these characters are the ones used in the taxonomic treatments; however, the study would benefit from summarizing these results in this section.)
3. In section 4.2 (lines 889-913), the authors interesntingly propose that nymphal morphology might reflect phylogenetic relationships. While the hypothesized relationship between Almacris and Mazarredia based on nymphal morphology is clear, the phylogenetic hypothesis for other genera (Ginixistra, Xistrella, Xistra and Tegotettix) remains ambiguous. Please clarify this broader hypothesis.
4. Additionally, the authors suggest that head morphology indicates the presence of additional subgenera or genera within Xistra (lines 915-928). However, it's unclear why these taxa weren't formally recognized. Please justify this conservative classification choice, explaining what additional evidence is needed or the rationale behind their current approach.
5. The discussion of Xistrellini (lines 930-959) suggest the authors lack confidence in the validity or monophyly of this tribe, as currently defined. Although this tribe is morphologically defined, the authors also acknowledge high morphological variability (in the used characteres) among its genera that complicates proposing internal relationships. Furthermore, existing phylogenetic studies (Kasalo et al. 2023) include only 3 of the 10 recognized genera, all of them from the Oriental biogeograophic region. Given these significant issues, what is the rationale for proposing the erection of a “seeminly dubious” new tribe? How does establishing this new tribe resolve previous taxonomic problems within the group? Please justify.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is not my first language, but I have identified various grammatical and wording issues throughout the manuscript. I strongly recommend a thorough review of the entire text to improve clarity and accuracy.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. We have now changed the title into “Taxonomic revision of pygmy devil genera Almacris, Ginixistra, Tegotettix, and Xistra, with comments on Xistrella (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae)” as we do not deal with Xistrella revision in detail, but only briefly.

 

Reviewer: This manuscript proposes multiple taxonomic changes for Tetrigidae mainly from the Philippines archipelago and mainland Asia. These changes involve description of 3 new species, 1 new subgenus, 2 new genera, 1 new tribe and more than 20 new or resurrected combinations. I acknowledge that the authors are facing a complex group of grasshoppers, and their extensive work could be a significant contribution to the taxonomy of Tetrigidae. However, I've also identified several aspects of the manuscript that require further clarification and careful revision to ensure a more robust and well-supported taxonomic output. Below, I provide a detailed list of section-specific comments to support my recommendations.

Reply: Thank you very much for your detailed review and all the comments that improved quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your comments bellow.

 

Reviewer: Lines 38-40. The emphasis on this conclusion is disproportionate, especially when a more conservative tone is adopted in the discussion section regarding this new tribe. This sentence also gives the impression that the study, per se, used molecular data to estimate the tribe's probable origin. I suggest rephrase this part to adopt a more conservative tone and clearly indicate that your morphological data support previous molecular phylogenetic inferences.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. We agree that the original wording could be interpreted as if our study directly estimated the tribe’s origin using molecular data, which is not the case. To address this, we have revised the sentence to adopt a more conservative tone and to clearly attribute the Cretaceous age estimate to previous molecular studies, while clarifying that our morphological results are consistent with those earlier phylogenetic inferences.

 

Reviewer: Given that the “main focus” of the study is the genus Xistra (as stated by the authors in lines 46-47), one would expect to find a clear, succinct and comprehensive overview of the taxonomic history of this taxon. However, the authors only provide a brief overview lacking many important aspects that complicate understanding the current taxonomy of the group.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. The Introduction is now ammended with complete overview of Xistra taxonomy, including the species added after the authors mentioned in the tbale.

 

Reviewer: The total number of species (and their names) currently comprising Xistra is not provided. This information is also relevant to include at least for the principal taxonomic studies in the genus. How many species were recognized by Bolivar, Hancock, Gunther, etc.? & A brief explanation of why the species recognized by Hancock were transferred to different genera by others is necessary. These taxonomic changes must also be added to Table 1, which only includes 12 taxa without clear justification. What happen with the other species of Xistra? Why that information is omitted?

Reply: Thank you very much for your comment. We have corrected the description of the Table 1., prolonged the paragraph on Xistra research history, and added reasoning behing the species being assigned to different genera. The description of Table 1. is corrected so it clearly explains why only these species are shown in the table.

 

Reviewer: The authors note that Günther (1935-1942) made various taxonomic changes “without adequate explanation (lines 72-74)”, but they do not provide their rationale for this view. Please, briefly explain why Günther’s changes lack adequate explanation?

Reply: Thank you for your comment. The sentence is now corrected.

 

Reviewer: The authors emphasize the work of Patano and Colleges (2021) as a fundamental one for the taxonomy of Xistra and Tegotettix, but this work is not included in Table 1. Why? & If Patano and Colleges (2021) noted that Tegotettix (cristiferus) and T. (armatus) species groups “… clearly belonged to different genera”, why these previous authors did not elevate these species groups to the genus level? Please briefly explain.

Reply: Thank you very much for your comment. As our team includes authors from Patano et al. (2021) paper, we have now added a complete explanation on why this work represents important work in deciphering Xistra and Tegotettix taxonomy, as well as why authors did not conduct full taxonomic acts in 2021.

 

Reviewer: In lines 82-85, the authors indicate that the genus Xistra has been “…filled with different unrelated species (Table 1)”, but in Table 1, is not evident which “unrelated” species were transferred to Xistra. Please clarify or correct.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. The Table 1. is now corrected so it contains only species considered by Bolívar, Günther, and Hancock, as well as their taxonomic history. Other species are now mentioned in text (see Reply to one of the comments above).

 

Reviewer: The introduction also lacks an explanation for Xistra's complex and seemingly chaotic taxonomic history. Is this due to a lack of a clear taxonomic definition, because previous studies focused heavily on highly variable characters, or is it something else entirely? Providing this information might also help to more firmly ground the first objective of the study (“to define Xistra based on the type species and species closely related to it and exclude the species not belonging to this genus”).

Reply: Thank you very much for your comment. We have now altered the first paragraph.

 

Reviewer: The introduction also lacks a clear connection and transition between the need of a taxonomic revision of the genus Xistra and the revision (and erection) of the other taxa.

Reply: Thank you for your comment, we have now made it clear in the introduction.

 

Reviewer: Overall, I recommend providing a more comprehensive but succinct taxonomic overview of the genus Xistra. This, besides illustrating the complex taxonomic history of the genus, might also help to understand why other genera, tribes and even subfamilies of Tetrigidae are considered (or mentioned) in this study.

Reply: Thank you very much for all your comments on the major issues of the Introduction. We have now provided a more comprehensive overview of the genus Xistra, as well as other genera mentioned in this study.

 

Reviewer: The complete reference of Cigliano et al. 2025 is not included in the referecen list.

Reply: Thank you, corrected.

 

Reviewer: Line 57: Rephrase “Species Hancock assigned” to “The species Hancock assigned” for grammatical correctness.

Reply: Thank you, corrected.

 

Reviewer: Table 1 (first column, second row): Change “Xistra Gogorzae” to “Xistra gogorzae”.

Reply: Thank you. We have corrected it, even though Bolívar really did use capital letter in this case as in his time (1887) there was no rule that patronyms should not be written in caps.

 

Reviewer: Recommendation: specify the type of data you used and simply the first objective, for example: “… to define Xistra based on morphological comparisons of the type species and its closely related species”.

Reply: Thank you, the aims of the paper are now re-written more clearly.

 

Reviewer: Relevant information and details regarding nature and provenance of the analyzed material is omitted. For example:No information is provided about the nature and quantity of samples analyzed for the all the studied taxa, except the new genus Almacris. In section “2.1” the authors describe only how fieldwork was conducted for Almacris, but they do not indicate if this methodology also applies for other taxa.

Reply: Thank you, we have now included a paragraph at the beginning of Materials and methods section stating that we have physically examined specimens mentioned in this study that are deposited European and Philippine museums (see Abbreviations just before the References sec-tion), including freshly collected specimens (see below). Species from PR China were examined from high-quality published photographs, a common practice in tetrigidol-ogy, and images from the Orthoptera Species File.

 

Reviewer: The authors must explicitly indicate if they were able to physically revise type material of previously described taxa, or if comparisons were based on specimens collected in type localities or on photographs of type species alone. This clarification is crucial because the authors are proposing various taxonomic changes (e.g., nearly all currently recognized species of Xistra are transferred to Xistrella by the authors) that might lack support if they were unable to revise type material.

Reply: Thank you for your comment and concern. We have physically examined all the type specimens of the species deposited in European museums, as well as the species from the Philippines. Unfortunately, for species from PR China we have not personally examined type specimens, but have based our conclusions on high quality photographs from paper by our Chinese colleagues, as well as from databases such as Orthoptera Species File. Working with high-quality photographs of types is common in tetrigidology. In any case, we have now clearly stated which species were examined by us.

 

Reviewer: In section 2.1., the authors indicate that specimens of Almacris “…were collected through hand picking along the established transect covering all vegetation of the mountain.” (lines 102-103), but they do not provide relevant information regarding the use of this method, such as the length, the altitudinal range and extreme geographic coordinates of this transect (or at least a map depicting the location of the transect within Mindanao). Please, provide that information along with the name of “the mountain” in this section.

Reply: Thank you for this notice. Transect is not important here as it was part of another survey, so its mention is removed and the paragraph is rewritten.

 

Reviewer: In section 2.6 the authors provide a list of measurements, but they do not justify why nor explain how these metrics were taken. Are these standard measurements for Tetrigidae? Did you use a digital caliper or stereoscope with camera to do it? Please explain briefly.

Reply: Thank you for your comment, the paragraph is now corrected.

 

Reviewer: Specify the equipment used to take photos of live and mounted specimens.

Reply: Thank you, we did it.

 

Reviewer: What do HT and PT stand for? Please explain all abreviation in the main text at first use (line 112).

Reply: Thank you, we have decided to use full words.

 

Reviewer: consider moving the “abbreviations” section to the methods section to allow familiarizing with them before they appear in this and the subsequent sections.

Reply: Thank you for your comment, but we have followed the journal format which cannot be changed.

 

Reviewer: use abbreviations only for depository institution names (which involve multiple words) and not for kinds of types (lectotype, holotype, etc. which involve a single word). This may facilitate reading of taxonomic treatments and tables.

Reply: Thank you for your comment, we have changed words of types into full words.

 

Reviewer: change “were also noted.” for “were also recorded.” (line 108).

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: consolidate all text of section “2.1” (lines 98-110) as a single paragraph.

Reply: Thank you for the recommendation, we did it.

 

Reviewer: Include a figure showing how measurements were taken.

Reply: Thank you for the recommendation, we have included a figure.

 

Reviewer: Use similar, simple names for the main sections of taxonomic treatments (e.g., “Type depository” instead of “Type specimen depository”; “Description” instead of “HT description or descriptive diagnosis”).

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: Results: Major issues: Keep “Composition” and “Distribution” as separate sections and, when possible, provide a brief description of how species distribute (elevation range, type of vegetation or substrate, open or forested areas, number or records) and when they can be found (or when they have been collected) in given country, island or mountain.

Reply: Thank you for the comment, we have now separated composition and distribution. For all the species we present, these are the full information, so unfortunately there is nothing on elevation, type of vegetation, when they can be found. Only type specimens are known and these data are too few to make conclusions.

 

Reviewer: Results: Major issues: Multiple taxonomic treatments include a “Note” section or multiple “Notes” sections (e.g., taxonomic treatment of Xistra). I recommend use “Taxonomic remarks” instead of “Note” or “Notes on …”.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: Results: Major issues: Names of same depositories are provided in different ways (e.g., “Coll. Tumbrinck”, “Josef Tumbrinck Collection”), sometimes the explanation of the abbreviation is given (line 430), while omitted for others (line 425, “NMW”). Homogenize the way you refer to depositories.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: Results: Major issues: Sometimes abbreviations are used for specifying kinds of type specimens (see Figure 1 title), but other times the full word is used (see Figure 7 title). Homogenize the way you refer to different kinds of type specimens.

Reply: Thank you for the comment, we have corrected it in the way that whole words are used now.

 

Reviewer: Almacris gen. nov. The authors suggest a close relationship between Almacris and Mazarredia in the discussion section, but this relationship is neglected, here, in the “descriptive diagnosis” of the genus. In fact, this section provides only a short description of the genus, without explaining how the genus differs from its most similar or most closely related taxon (i.e., a diagnosis). Please, include a diagnosis.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have now included a short comparison with Mazarredia nymphs. Unfortunately, we are not sure what is the most similar or closely related taxon, thus we provided a brief descriptive diagnosis with traits importat to distinguish Almacris from all known genera.

 

Reviewer: Almacris alleochroa sp. nov. In lines 257-258: “Antegenicular tooth weak, genicular strong. Outer…”. Explain which genicular structure is “strong” or what you mean by “genicular strong”.

Reply: Thank you, it is corrected now.

 

Reviewer: change “Coloration (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4)” for “Coloration (Figures 1- 4)”. Specify the sex of live individuals displayed in figures 2 to 4.

Reply: Thank you, it is now done.

 

Reviewer: In “Measurements” section (lines 298 – 305), provide all measurements in a table, same as for the other species in the study.

Reply:  Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: In the diagnosis, the authors compare this genus with other similar genera, Tegotettix and Xistra, but make no comparison with the other genera of the same tribe, Exanimus and Fijixistra (probably the most closely related taxa to this new genus according with the authors). Authors should incorporate a short comparison between Ginixistra and other Exanimini genera.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: change “Note on the taxonomic arrangement of the genus” for “Taxonomic remarks”.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: Ginixistra davorkae sp. nov. The two notes (in lines 455-457 and 471-475) provided essentially the same information. Consolidate both in a single “Taxonomic remarks” section. 

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: Ginixistra novaebritanniae sp. nov.: Redundant information in lines 483 and 489. Consolidate in a single “Type depository” section.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: headings for Specimens, Locality, Depository within Table 2.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: Genus Tegotettix: Diagnosis: Revise wording of the sentence “Typical Discotettiginae genus, characteristic in lack of spiky lateral lobes” and explain where the “spiky lateral lobes” are lacking.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: The authors are proposing a significant reduction in the number of species within Tegotettix. This requires a clear redefinition of the genus concept, distinct from the diagnosis section, to accompany such a proposition.

Reply: Thank you for the comment, we have now included Redefinition section for the genus Tegotettix.

 

Reviewer: In Table 3, depositories are listed before specimen localities, while Table 2 presents this information in the opposite order. Please homogenize the order of this information across all similar tables.

Reply: Thank you, we have corrected it.

 

Reviewer: Incorrect “Subfamily assignment”: According with the Orthoptera Species File (2025), this genus belongs to subfamily Metrodorinae. Correct this information.

Reply: Thank you, we have made it clear now why it should be without subfamily placement.

 

Reviewer: A section with a clear “Redefinition” of the genus Xistra is required, given the multiple taxonomic changes the authors are proposing for this genus (e.g., most current species of the genus are transferred to Xistrella and species of Tegottetix are transferred to Xistra).

Reply: Thank you for the comment. Now, we have added a short paragraph Re-definition of the genus Xistra.

 

Reviewer: The diagnosis of this genus must also include the differences between species of Xistra (here recognized) and those transferred to the genus Xistrella by the autors.

Reply: Thank you, we have included comparison with Xistrella.

 

Reviewer: Recommendation: consolidate the sections “Species transferred from Xistra to Xistrella.” and “Notes on the diagnoses of Xistra and its subgenera” into a single “Taxonomic remarks” section before the Identification key for species of Xistra.

Reply: Thank you for the comment, we have done so.

 

Reviewer: The authors state that Xistra “species from mainland Asia do not belong to this genus, but instead to Xistrella … (lines 583-584)”, and that the “Genus Xistra is endemic to the Philippines and to Borneo and does not inhabit mainland Asia (lines 607-608)”. However, they do not provide an explanation or supporting evidence (morphological, ecological, or genetic) for this significant taxonomic proposition. This omission is particularly notable given their early criticism of Günther's taxonomic changes for lacking “adequate explanation”. In the absence of proper justification and empirical support, these “transferred” species should remain classified under the genus Xistra. The authors can express their belief (in taxonomic remarks) that these mainland species likely don't belong to Xistra but also should acknowledge that additional information is required to resolve this.

Reply: Thank you very much for your comment. We have now clarified it with several characters and references.

 

Reviewer: the information provided in the section “New records of Xistra (Tegoxistra) derijei comb. nov. Xistra derijei comb. nov.” should be included under the “Distribution” section.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: Table 4. Why information about locality of measured specimens is not provided? Please include that information as you did for previous species.

Reply: Thank you, it has been added now.

 

Reviewer: The “diagnosis” of this tribe can be used as description or a definition of the tribe. & “dianosis” pointing out the differences between the new tribe and its closely related or more similar tribes is lacking.

Reply: Thank you, we have now added a diagnosis comparing Tetriginae to Xistrellini and Tetrigini.

 

Reviewer: Move the "Phylogenetic note" content to the Discussion section, where it can be more effectively integrated and analyzed regarding this taxon.

Reply: Thank you, done.

 

Reviewer: The first four paragraphs (section 4.1; lines 863-885) discussing characters employed by Günther for transferring Xistra species to Tegotettix would benefit from consolidation into a single succinct paragraph. Adding a clear concluding statement on the implications of this information is also crucial, as its relevance to the current study (or in the discussion) is unclear.

Reply: Thank you for the comment, we have now re-organized the paragraph.

 

Reviewer: Moreover, the authors should address: Why only Gunther’s results are discussed? How do the findings of the present study compare to those of other more recent previous works, such as Patano et al. (2021)? If Günther's characters lack taxonomic utility, what specific characters are recommended for higher-level classification of Xistra species and related taxa? (I assume these characters are the ones used in the taxonomic treatments; however, the study would benefit from summarizing these results in this section.)

Reply: Thank you for the comment, a paragraph is now added at the beginning of the discussion.

 

Reviewer: In section 4.2 (lines 889-913), the authors interesntingly propose that nymphal morphology might reflect phylogenetic relationships. While the hypothesized relationship between Almacris and Mazarredia based on nymphal morphology is clear, the phylogenetic hypothesis for other genera (Ginixistra, Xistrella, Xistra and Tegotettix) remains ambiguous. Please clarify this broader hypothesis.

Reply: Thank you for your comment, we have now improved the paragraph and fused it with 4.1. section

 

Reviewer: Additionally, the authors suggest that head morphology indicates the presence of additional subgenera or genera within Xistra (lines 915-928). However, it's unclear why these taxa weren't formally recognized. Please justify this conservative classification choice, explaining what additional evidence is needed or the rationale behind their current approach.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have changed the whole paragraph now to make it brief and more informative.

 

Reviewer: The discussion of Xistrellini (lines 930-959) suggest the authors lack confidence in the validity or monophyly of this tribe, as currently defined. Although this tribe is morphologically defined, the authors also acknowledge high morphological variability (in the used characteres) among its genera that complicates proposing internal relationships. Furthermore, existing phylogenetic studies (Kasalo et al. 2023) include only 3 of the 10 recognized genera, all of them from the Oriental biogeograophic region. Given these significant issues, what is the rationale for proposing the erection of a “seeminly dubious” new tribe? How does establishing this new tribe resolve previous taxonomic problems within the group? Please justify.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have now made it clear that Xistrellini are trully a monophyletic tribe, but relationships between its members are something for future work.

 

Reviewer: English is not my first language, but I have identified various grammatical and wording issues throughout the manuscript. I strongly recommend a thorough review of the entire text to improve clarity and accuracy.

Reply: Thank you very much for your comment. The paper has now been proof read by a Native speaker.

 

Reviewer: The taxonomic treatments are heterogenous among taxa and sometimes incomplete. For example: Both “diagnosis” and “description” is provided for the new taxon Almacris alleochroa, while only “diagnosis” is prodived for the other new species described in this study (G. davorkae and G. novaebritanniae). A description (or definition) section is mandatory for all new species according with article 13.1.1 of the ICZN.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have also included description for all new taxa now. Also, we have included re-description of Ginixistra novaeguineae comb. nov.

 

Reviewer: Similarly, the authors provide "Diagnoses" for all other taxa, but these are sometimes incomplete. Some of them fail to consider the most similar or closely related taxa (Ginixistra, Tegotettix and Xistrellini), and in some instances, they function more as descriptions or definitions rather than true diagnoses (Xistra).

Reply: Thank you for your comment, we have now provided annotated diagnoses which are more comparative.

 

Reviewer: In many cases, different names are given to the same elements of taxonomic treatments (e.g., Type depository, Type specimen depository, and Type material depository; Type material or Type series; HT description or descriptive diagnosis). Moreover, some of these sections are provided for some taxa but omitted for others (e.g., the taxonomic treatments of the new genera Ginixistra and Almacris lack the “composition and distribution” section that is given for Tegotettix and Xistra; “Habitat and ecology” is also missing for most species). Lastly, some elements not always follow the same order (e.g. etymology sometimes is after “Subfamily assignment”, others after “Type depository”).

Reply: Thank you, we have now made it uniform.

 

Reviewer: Overall, I urged authors to incorporate the missing sections and homogenize the elements of taxonomic treatments (between taxa in the same taxonomic level). Authors also are strongly encouraged to meticulously review the main text, tables, and figures. Many details—including abbreviation usage, information omissions, and repeated words—currently undermine the extensive work they've accomplished.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We agree that the manuscript should be uniform, so we have meticulously revised the whole manuscript and now made it homogenous.

 

 

Manuscript is now significantly reviewed and parts of the Introduction, Material and methods, Results, and Discussion are changed for better. Figures are now improved so they clearly show the measurements and the diagnostic traits. We hope that we clearly addressed all the reviewer's comments, suggestions and recommendations. Thank you very much for the thorough review that significantly improved our manuscript scientifically, methodologically, and that contributed to the clarity of our study. If you have any more questions, we will gladly address them.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Thank you for your thorough revisions. I think the manuscript has improved significantly, and you have addressed all of my previous comments.

I have identified a few minor issues to be corrected, along with some optional recommendations for your consideration (see below).

Comments and recommendations

Line 150: “ Species from PR China were examined from high-quality published photographs”

Comment: Please provide the references or depository of the photographs.

 

Line 210-211: “ This genus deals with Almacris, Ginixistra and Xistra in detail”

Comment: Is this sentence correct or did you mean “This study” rather than “this genus”?

 

Lines 788-792: “We can assume that the species habitat is probably similar, if not the same, to the habitat surveyed for Odonata diversity and depicted in [Gassmann, et al. 2015]. These are wet rainforest habitats rich in creeks.” 

Recommendation: This information can be transferred to “Habitat and Ecology” section below (line 793)

 

Lines 892-902: “Head slightly dorsoventrally elongated; compound eyes and the tips of vertex above the level of the pronotum. In frontal view, medial carina of the vertex positioned just between the compound eyes, and with lateral sides of the vertex elevated. In the frontal view frontal costa bifurcation very high, with frontal costa itself being nearly invisible; X. cristifera being an exception with its short but visible frontal costa. Tip of the eyes visibly above the vertex. Lateral carinae projected as horns, which are in some species very low (X. sagittaria), while in others very high (X. corniculata, X. cristifera, X. derijei). Antennal grooves positioned below the lower margins of the compound eyes. Paired ocelli below the middle level of the eyes, po- sition varies depending on the degree to which the vertex is lowered below the eyes. Scutellum slightly (X. sagittaria) or conspicuously widened (X. derijei).”

Recommendation: this first part of the “descriptive diagnosis” of Xistra serves more like a definition rather than like diagnosis. You can placed this paragraph in the “Redefinition” section of the genus.

 

Lines 1322-1323: “The transfer of Chinese species from Xistra to Xistrella solves the problem of Xistra taxonomy, but many problems of Xistrella taxonomy.”

Comment: This sentences seems incomplete. Please revise. 

 

Congratulations on your work.

Author Response

Reviewer comment 1: Thank you for your thorough revisions. I think the manuscript has improved significantly, and you have addressed all of my previous comments.I have identified a few minor issues to be corrected, along with some optional recommendations for your consideration (see below).

Answer 1: Thank you very much for your thorough review and all the suggestions that improved the quality of our study.

 

Reviewer comment 2: Line 150: “ Species from PR China were examined from high-quality published photographs” Comment: Please provide the references or depository of the photographs.

Answer 2: Thank you for the comment. We have now provided the most important references. Other references are mentioned under the paragraph where we moved Chinese Xistra to Xistrella.

 

Reviewer comment 3: Line 210-211: “ This genus deals with Almacris, Ginixistra and Xistra in detail” Comment: Is this sentence correct or did you mean “This study” rather than “this genus”?

Answer 3: Thank you for the notification. Indeed, it should be stated „this study“. It's corrected.

 

Reviewer comment 4: Lines 788-792: “We can assume that the species habitat is probably similar, if not the same, to the habitat surveyed for Odonata diversity and depicted in [Gassmann, et al. 2015]. These are wet rainforest habitats rich in creeks.”  Recommendation: This information can be transferred to “Habitat and Ecology” section below (line 793)

Answer 4: Thank you. It makes sense, indeed, so we've transferred this part to the „Habitat and Ecology“ paragraph.

 

Reviewer comment 5: Lines 892-902: “Head slightly dorsoventrally elongated; compound eyes and the tips of vertex above the level of the pronotum. In frontal view, medial carina of the vertex positioned just between the compound eyes, and with lateral sides of the vertex elevated. In the frontal view frontal costa bifurcation very high, with frontal costa itself being nearly invisible; X. cristifera being an exception with its short but visible frontal costa. Tip of the eyes visibly above the vertex. Lateral carinae projected as horns, which are in some species very low (X. sagittaria), while in others very high (X. corniculata, X. cristifera, X. derijei). Antennal grooves positioned below the lower margins of the compound eyes. Paired ocelli below the middle level of the eyes, po- sition varies depending on the degree to which the vertex is lowered below the eyes. Scutellum slightly (X. sagittaria) or conspicuously widened (X. derijei).” Recommendation: this first part of the “descriptive diagnosis” of Xistra serves more like a definition rather than like diagnosis. You can placed this paragraph in the “Redefinition” section of the genus.

Answer 5: Thank you very much, we have now placed this part to the „Redefinition“

 

Reviewer comment 6: Lines 1322-1323: “The transfer of Chinese species from Xistra to Xistrella solves the problem of Xistra taxonomy, but many problems of Xistrella taxonomy.” Comment: This sentences seems incomplete. Please revise. 

Answer 6: Thank you for the comment. The sentence is now corrected into: “The transfer of Chinese species from Xistra to Xistrella solves the problem of Xistra taxonomy, but opens many issues in Xistrella taxonomy.”

 

Reviewer comment 7: Congratulations on your work.

Answer 7: Many thanks for the informative and helpful review! Cheers!

 

P.S. Besides to answering all of your comments, we have ammended the phylogenetic information with the newly published Phaesticus mitogenome; we have added genus Kannakacris to Xistrellini, which was recently described from New Caledonia; and we have ammended section on „Habitat and ecology“ of the Almacris alleochroa and added information on the plants inhabiting the localities:

“In the lower montane forest (1200 m a.s.l.), the new species was observed dwelling on tree trunks covered with mosses of the family Calymperaceae. The lower montane forest ecosystem of Mount Balatukan is dominated by the trees such as Tritaxis malayana (Hook.f.) R.Y.Yu & Welzen (family Euphorbiaceae) and Goniocheton arborescens Blume (family Meliaceae); ferns such as Blechnopsis orientalis (L.) C.Presl (family  Blechnaceae), Histiopteris incisa (Thunb.) J.Sm. (family Dennstaedtiaceae), Dipteris conjugata Reinw. (family Dipteridaceae), Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn (family Dennstaedtiaceae), and Nephrolepis hirsutula (G.Forst.) C.Presl (family Nephrolepidaceae); and bryophytes such as Garovaglia elegans (Dozy & Molk.) Hampe ex Bosch & Sande Lac. (family Ptychomniaceae), Leucobryum javense (Brid.) Mitt. (family Leucobryaceae), and Dicranoloma sp. (family Dicranaceae); but there are also many orchids (family Orchidaceae), gingers (order Gingiberales), and many epiphytes.

Some individuals were observed along the agroforest ecosystem (1080-1110 m asl.), dominated by rainforest trees such as Dillenia philippinensis Rolfe (family Dilleniaceae), Hellenia speciosa (J.Koenig) S.R.Dutta (family Costaceae), and Freycinetia multiflora Merr. (family Pandanaceae), but also by agricultural plants such as banana (Musa textilis Née, family Musaceae) and coffee (Coffea arabica L., family Rubiaceae). Many ferns and lesser clubmosses were observed along the ecosystem, such as Nephrolepis falcata (Cav.) C.Chr. (family Nephrolepidaceae), Syngramma alismifolia (C.Presl) J.Sm. (family Pteridaceae), Pteridium aquilinum, Christella parasitica (L.) H.Lév. (family Thelypteridaceae), and Selaginella cupressina (Willd.) Spring (family Selaginellaceae); bryophytes such as Hymenodon sericeus (Dozy & Molk.) Müll. Hal. (family Orthodontiaceae), Isopterygium sp. (family Pylaisiadelphaceae), Dicranoloma sp., aroids, gingers, and climbing vines. Natural habitats of Almacris alleochroa gen. et sp. nov. is gradually being converted to agricultural areas which could lead to the extinction of the subpopulations in Mt. Balatukan, where altogether less than 10 individuals of this extraordinary species have been observed.“

 

Once again, we are grateful to the reviewer for the insightful comments. We have enjoyed addressing comments and suggestions.

All the best,

Authors