A New Species of Bauhinia (Fabaceae: Cercidoideae): Morphological and Phylogenetic Insights

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 1 (p. 4): The colors used to highlight the sections are making it difficult to read, especially the Afrobauhinia section. I suggest using a lighter blue or changing the font color to white.
Image 2 (p. 6) is blurry. I suggest improving the image quality.
Regarding the material examined (p. 9), I found another specimen, D. Philcox 3185 et al., deposited at the Kew Herbarium (K000807912). I suggest adding it.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 - Highlighted in gray

1.Reviewer question: Figure 1 (p. 4): The colors used to highlight the sections are making it difficult to read, especially the Afrobauhinia section. I suggest using a lighter blue or changing the font color to white.

Authors: Done

 

2. Reviewer question: Image 2 (p. 6) is blurry. I suggest improving the image quality.

Authors: Accepted suggestion

 

3. Reviewer question: Regarding the material examined (p. 9), I found another specimen, D. Philcox 3185 et al., deposited at the Kew Herbarium (K000807912). I suggest adding it

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 9, line 219)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript meets all formal requirements for the valid publication of a new taxon under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). The newly proposed species appears to be morphologically distinct from closely related taxa, and its recognition is supported by both diagnostic characters and phylogenetic evidence. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and includes essential elements such as a detailed description, type designation, comparative diagnosis, and illustrations.

However, the manuscript would benefit from revisions to improve clarity and consistency in the writing. Below are specific points that should be addressed.

Justification using pseudoracemes: The use of "terminal pseudoraceme" as a justification for affinities among species is inadequate, as this is a general character of Bauhinia ser. Cansenia.

Formatting and nomenclature: Citation of author names and use of italics are not consistently applied throughout the manuscript. A thorough revision of formatting is necessary.

Incomplete references: Some references cited in the text are missing from the References section. Please cross-check and ensure consistency.

Phylogenetic analysis mismatch: The Methods section refers to Maximum Likelihood (ML) results, but Figure 1 presents a Maximum Parsimony (MP) tree. This discrepancy should be clarified.

Environmental influence statement: The sentence “suggesting possible environmental influences on phenotypic expression” appears speculative and contradicts the morphological stability observed in other traits. Consider revising or supporting with additional data.

Structure of species description: Descriptions of bracts and bracteoles are placed under the “Floral” section, although they pertain to the inflorescence. These should be moved to the appropriate section.

Terminological inconsistency: The text occasionally confuses "leaflet" and "lobe", particularly in the leaf blade description. This should be corrected to avoid misinterpretation (see suggestion in the attacghed file).

Fruit consistency: Fruits of series Cansenia are generally woody. In this manuscript, they are described as "coriaceous", which should be re-evaluated and clarified in the context of the series.

Androecium heteromorphy: Since stamens are described as heteromorphic, the different morphs should be explicitly described to improve clarity and diagnostic value.

Geopolitical terminology: Avoid use of geopolitical regional terms such as “Central-West” that are specific to Brazil and may not be meaningful to an international readership.

Data transparency: It is important to clearly indicate in the Materials and Methods and in the supplementary table which DNA sequences were newly generated for this study and which were retrieved from GenBank.

Once these issues are addressed, the manuscript will be significantly strengthened. I support the recognition of Bauhinia latistipulata as a new species and recommend acceptance after minor to moderate revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2 - Highlighted in green

The manuscript meets all formal requirements for the valid publication of a new taxon under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). The newly proposed species appears to be morphologically distinct from closely related taxa, and its recognition is supported by both diagnostic characters and phylogenetic evidence. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and includes essential elements such as a detailed description, type designation, comparative diagnosis, and illustrations.

However, the manuscript would benefit from revisions to improve clarity and consistency in the writing. Below are specific points that should be addressed.

1. Reviewer question: Justification using pseudoracemes: The use of "terminal pseudoraceme" as a justification for affinities among species is inadequate, as this is a general character of Bauhinia Cansenia.

Authors: This term was removed  (page 1, line 20) (page 7, line 146)

 

2. Reviewer question: Formatting and nomenclature: Citation of author names and use of italics are not consistently applied throughout the manuscript. A thorough revision of formatting is necessary.

Authors: A full review has been completed (page 2, line 31-35 ) (page 2 , line 37) (page 2, line 43-46)

3. Reviewer question: Incomplete references: Some references cited in the text are missing from the References section. Please cross-check and ensure consistency.

Authors: References and citations have been reviewed

4.  
5. Reviewer question: Phylogenetic analysis mismatch: The Methods section refers to Maximum Likelihood (ML) results, but Figure 1 presents a Maximum Parsimony (MP) tree. This discrepancy should be clarified.

Authors: We corrected a typo in the Figure 1 caption text. Please note: the analysis performed was Maximum Likelihood, not Parsimony.

 

6. Reviewer question: so, it is not true that "both Bayesian Inference (BI) and maximum likelihood" provided strong support. Please rephrase.

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 5, line 115-118)

 

7. Reviewer question: In fact it lacks support as spp appear in a polytomy within clade E.

Authors: Clade E is stringly supported, but the internal relationships lacks support. Sentence rephrased (page 5, line 123-124).

 

8. Reviewer question: Environmental influence statement: The sentence “suggesting possible environmental influences on phenotypic expression” appears speculative and contradicts the morphological stability observed in other traits. Consider revising or supporting with additional data.

Authors: Sentence removed from the text (page 7, line 156)

 

9. Reviewer question: Structure of species description: Descriptions of bracts and bracteoles are placed under the “Floral” section, although they pertain to the inflorescence. These should be moved to the appropriate section.

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 8, line 179-181)

 

10. Reviewer question: Terminological inconsistency: The text occasionally confuses "leaflet" and "lobe", particularly in the leaf blade description. This should be corrected to avoid misinterpretation (see suggestion in the attacghed file).

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 7, line 173-175) (page 6, line 146)

 

11. Reviewer question: Fruit consistency: Fruits of series Cansenia are generally woody. In this manuscript, they are described as "coriaceous", which should be re-evaluated and clarified in the context of the series.

Authors: Accepted suggestion

 

 

12. Reviewer question: Androecium heteromorphy: Since stamens are described as heteromorphic, the different morphs should be explicitly described to improve clarity and diagnostic value.

Authors: Term corrected to "heterodynamous" (page 8, line 186)

 

13. Reviewer question: Geopolitical terminology: Avoid use of geopolitical regional terms such as “Central-West” that are specific to Brazil and may not be meaningful to an international readership.

Authors: Accepted suggestion

 

14. Reviewer question: Data transparency: It is important to clearly indicate in the Materials and Methods and in the supplementary table which DNA sequences were newly generated for this study and which were retrieved from GenBank.

Authors: We have updated the manuscript and supplementary table to indicate which sequences were sourced from GenBank (page 4, line 81-83) (page 10, line 222)

 

Once these issues are addressed, the manuscript will be significantly strengthened. I support the recognition of Bauhinia latistipulata as a new species and recommend acceptance after minor to moderate revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent work, gentlemen! Congratulations! A fantastically well-founded molecular and morphological study of a genus (Bauhinia) from one of the most diverse and important families (Fabaceae) on the planet. Only minor errors in the text, not in the content.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3 - Highlighted in blue

Excellent work, gentlemen! Congratulations! A fantastically well-founded molecular and morphological study of a genus (Bauhinia) from one of the most diverse and important families (Fabaceae) on the planet. Only minor errors in the text, not in the content.

1. Reviewer question: Change format, remove italics

Authors: Accepted suggestion

 

2. Reviewer question: The sect. Pauletia

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 2, line 41)

 

3. Reviewer question: Pentandrae?

Authors: Term corrected (page 2, line 45)

 

4. Reviewer question: Hybrid?

Authors: Yes, Bauhinia × blakeana is a hybrid between B. variegata com B. purpurea,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors objectively and clearly contextualized the introduction, linking it to the research results.

The research design is appropriate and complies with the journal's standards.

The methods are adequately described for morphological and phenological studies.

The results are presented clearly and objectively, leaving no doubt about the data presented.

The illustrations are very educational (both drawings and images) and are consistent with the characteristics presented in the description.

Few considerations are in the text for the authors to analyze.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 4 - Highlighted in pink

The authors objectively and clearly contextualized the introduction, linking it to the research results.

The research design is appropriate and complies with the journal's standards.

The methods are adequately described for morphological and phenological studies.

The results are presented clearly and objectively, leaving no doubt about the data presented.

The illustrations are very educational (both drawings and images) and are consistent with the characteristics presented in the description.

Few considerations are in the text for the authors to analyze.

 

1. Reviewer question: linear to lanceolate

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 3, line 52)

 

2. Reviewer question: domains

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 8, line 197)

 

3. Reviewer question: The RB (Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden) herbarium database contains records of the genus from the aforementioned locations. Furthermore, Dr. Ângela Vaz was a researcher at this institute. Wasn't the herbarium's digital collection consulted?

Authors: Yes, the digital herbarium was consulted. We have reviewed it again and appended the voucher information per your request (page 9, line 213-216)

 

4. Reviewer question: Any suggestions for locally applicable conservation actions?

Authors: It is out of the scope of this ms.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

High, but improvements in expression and structure will strengthen clarity and impact. The study presents a novel species, supported by robust morphological and molecular evidence, and properly discusses implications for taxonomy (e.g., polyphyly of Pauletia). Some taxonomic conclusions are stated too assertively without qualifiers (“confirms” vs. “supports”). Clearer transitions would help in discussion and diagnosis sections. The discussion of non-monophyly and phylogenetic conflict is present, but could be expanded with hypotheses or cautionary notes.

Title: A New and Remarkable Species of Bauhinia... The term “remarkable” is somewhat sensationalistic in a scientific context. A more appropriate choice would be: “distinct,” “notable,” or “diagnostically distinct.”The title is also rather long; it may be advisable to split it into two parts or simplify it.

Abstract: “We describe a new species of Bauhinia... in Mato Grosso...” The introductory sentence is informative but dense. Shorter sentences and a less blocky structure would improve readability. The following sentence is overly complex: "While floral morphology places this taxon within Bauhinia sect. Pauletia ser. Camsenia, it displays distinctive vegetative characteristics that differentiate it from all other members of the series." ("Although floral morphology suggests its placement in ..., its vegetative traits clearly separate it from all other known members.")

The use of taxonomic and molecular markers (ITS, matK, trnL-F) is appropriate, but some important details are missing: How many specimens were analyzed? In what way were morphological and molecular data cross-validated?

The phrase “Our results confirm the placement...” may be too strong unless it is supported by robust statistical evidence. A more cautious phrasing may be appropriate.

The diagnostic description is adequate, but the following sentence is overly compact and difficult to follow: "...tubular and ribbed flower buds (vs. clavate or subclavate and smooth), tomentose staminal tube (vs. pubescent), and white-tomentose ovary (vs. ferruginous-tomentose)."( It would be more effective to present these differences in a table or as a structured list, allowing the reader to follow them more easily.)

Keywords: The selected keywords are generally appropriate, but “New taxon” is too generic. Better alternatives might include: Bauhinia taxonomy, Brazilian Cerrado flora, New Bauhinia species

Materials and Methods: Repetition of "additionally" in the next sentence is clunky. → Use “We also examined…” instead.

SpeciesLink citation: nice to mention the source, but better to clarify whether these are herbarium comparisons or geolocation records.  Add: "used for morphological reference and occurrence mapping."

Distribution map generation: Consider explicitly stating: "QGIS (v.3.4.2) was used to generate distribution maps based on voucher coordinates."

Conservation assessment:  Nicely tied to IUCN guidelines, but lacks details on threshold categories. You might briefly say: “...was assessed under IUCN Criterion B using GeoCAT.”

 Molecular Phylogenetics: List-like structure: The paragraph about which taxa were included is too dense and hard to follow. (Use bullet points or at least semicolon-separated lines to improve clarity.)

Sentence structure example: "This study includes 54 species of Bauhinia sensu Sinou et al. (2020). It also includes two species of Phanera and one of Cheniella...” ("We included 54 species of Bauhinia (sensu Sinou et al. 2020), as well as two species of Phanera and one of Cheniella for outgroup rooting.")

Model selection for each region is appropriate, but would benefit from a brief mention of which substitution models were selected for each gene/region, either here or in a supplementary table.

 

Figure 1: Phylogenetic Tree: Tree legend should explain all abbreviations (e.g., PP, BP) even if mentioned in the figure caption. Figure caption mentions “species marked with ***”, but *** are hard to spot in this resolution. Consider a symbol that's more visible or adding bold or colored labels. If possible, provide branch lengths for visual scale (especially when using Bayesian inference trees).

 

Discussion: “Based on morphology the new species is placed within Bauhinia sect. Pauletia due to its tubular or clavate flower buds, tubular hypanthium, white linear petals, and presence of an irregularly fused staminal column.” (“Morphological characters suggest placement within B. sect. Pauletia, supported by its tubular or clavate flower buds, tubular hypanthium, white linear petals, and an irregularly fused staminal column.”

Repetition of full section/series names ("B. sect. Pauletia ser. Camsenia") should be reduced by introducing abbreviations after first use (e.g., “B. sect. Pauletia ser. Camsenia (hereafter: Camsenia)”).

Ambiguity in logic:“However, it is important to emphasize that both B. sect. Pauletia and B. sect. Pauletia ser. Camsenia were recovered as polyphyletic.”

You could clarify this with: "Although morphology supports placement in Camsenia, our phylogeny reveals that both the section and series may be polyphyletic, challenging current classification systems."

Smooth transitions are lacking:  Introduce contrast markers more deliberately: e.g., "Unlike B. cupulata, which shows...", "In contrast, B. latistipulata displays..."

Table 1: is helpful, but its integration into the text could be clearer. Consider referencing specific diagnostic features from the table directly in discussion.

Taxonomic Treatment: Diagnosis sentence structure: "Bauhinia latistipulata is distinguished from other members of B. ser. Camsenia by its reniform stipules and cymbiform bracts, as well as its hirsute abaxial leaf surface, tubular and ribbed flower buds, and white-tomentose ovary." "Shrubs to small trees": this is clear, but you could add height range parenthetically (0.5–2.0 m).

Avoid overly technical stacking: e.g., “Branches unarmed, sulcate, cylindrical, villous…”
 could be broken into:  “Branches unarmed, cylindrical and sulcate, covered with reddish glandular trichomes.”

 Figure & Table Comments: Excellent structure, but the figure legends are too brief. Suggest spelling out full labels: e.g., "S" = stamen, "G" = gynoecium. In Figure 3: the caption is long and somewhat meandering. Split it for clarity (e.g., habit, stipules, inflorescence, fruit).

Table 1: Highly useful. However:Capitalization of traits (e.g., “Stipules”) should be consistent with journal style. “Bracteoles” vs “Bracts” – might need a brief footnote on definition if not obvious to non-specialists. Consider adding one diagnostic line for "Inflorescence type" if relevant.

Author Response

Reviewer 5 - Highlighted in yellow

High, but improvements in expression and structure will strengthen clarity and impact. The study presents a novel species, supported by robust morphological and molecular evidence, and properly discusses implications for taxonomy (e.g., polyphyly of Pauletia). Some taxonomic conclusions are stated too assertively without qualifiers (“confirms” vs. “supports”). Clearer transitions would help in discussion and diagnosis sections. The discussion of non-monophyly and phylogenetic conflict is present, but could be expanded with hypotheses or cautionary notes.

 

1. Reviewer question: Title: A New and Remarkable Species of Bauhinia... The term “remarkable” is somewhat sensationalistic in a scientific context. A more appropriate choice would be: “distinct,” “notable,” or “diagnostically distinct.”The title is also rather long; it may be advisable to split it into two parts or simplify it.

Authors: Accepted suggestion

 

2. Reviewer question: Abstract: “We describe a new species of Bauhinia... in Mato Grosso...” The introductory sentence is informative but dense. Shorter sentences and a less blocky structure would improve readability. The following sentence is overly complex: "While floral morphology places this taxon within Bauhinia Pauletia ser. Cansenia, it displays distinctive vegetative characteristics that differentiate it from all other members of the series." ("Although floral morphology suggests its placement in ..., its vegetative traits clearly separate it from all other known members.")

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 1, lines 11-13)

 

3. Reviewer question: The use of taxonomic and molecular markers (ITS, matK, trnL-F) is appropriate, but some important details are missing: How many specimens were analyzed? In what way were morphological and molecular data cross-validated?

Authors: We included a single specimen for specimen as usual in phylogenetic studies.

 

4. Reviewer question: The phrase “Our results confirm the placement...” may be too strong unless it is supported by robust statistical evidence. A more cautious phrasing may be appropriate.

Authors: We raplaced confirm with “indicate” as suggested.

 

5. Reviewer question: The diagnostic description is adequate, but the following sentence is overly compact and difficult to follow: "...tubular and ribbed flower buds (vs. clavate or subclavate and smooth), tomentose staminal tube (vs. pubescent), and white-tomentose ovary (vs. ferruginous-tomentose)."( It would be more effective to present these differences in a table or as a structured list, allowing the reader to follow them more easily.)

Authors: We also provide a table comparing the key differences (see Table 1)

 

6. Reviewer question: Keywords: The selected keywords are generally appropriate, but “New taxon” is too generic. Better alternatives might include: Bauhinia taxonomy, Brazilian Cerrado flora, New Bauhinia species

Authors: Accepted suggestion

 

7. Reviewer question: Materials and Methods: Repetition of "additionally" in the next sentence is clunky. → Use “We also examined…” instead.

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 3, line 65)

 

8. Reviewer question: SpeciesLink citation: nice to mention the source, but better to clarify whether these are herbarium comparisons or geolocation records. Add: "used for morphological reference and occurrence mapping."

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 3, lines 65-67)

 

9. Reviewer question: Distribution map generation: Consider explicitly stating: "QGIS (v.3.4.2) was used to generate distribution maps based on voucher coordinates."

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 3, lines 71-72)

 

10. Reviewer question: Conservation assessment: Nicely tied to IUCN guidelines, but lacks details on threshold categories. You might briefly say: “...was assessed under IUCN Criterion B using GeoCAT.”

Authors: We improved the section of conservation status in the methods

 

11. Reviewer question: Molecular Phylogenetics: List-like structure: The paragraph about which taxa were included is too dense and hard to follow. (Use bullet points or at least semicolon-separated lines to improve clarity.)

Sentence structure example: "This study includes 54 species of Bauhinia sensu Sinou et al. (2020). It also includes two species of Phanera and one of Cheniella...” ("We included 54 species of Bauhinia (sensu Sinou et al. 2020), as well as two species of Phanera and one of Cheniella for outgroup rooting.")

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 4, lines 76-77)

 

12. Reviewer question: Model selection for each region is appropriate, but would benefit from a brief mention of which substitution models were selected for each gene/region, either here or in a supplementary table.

Authors: As we explained GTS+G was the model selected for each region.

 

13. Reviewer question: Figure 1: Phylogenetic Tree: Tree legend should explain all abbreviations (e.g., PP, BP) even if mentioned in the figure caption. Figure caption mentions “species marked with ***”, but *** are hard to spot in this resolution. Consider a symbol that's more visible or adding bold or colored labels. If possible, provide branch lengths for visual scale (especially when using Bayesian inference trees).

Authors: We included more information in Figure 1 cation, as well as we edited the figure highlighting species that belong to B. sect. Pauletia ser. Cansenia

 

14. Reviewer question: Discussion: “Based on morphology the new species is placed within Bauhinia Pauletia due to its tubular or clavate flower buds, tubular hypanthium, white linear petals, and presence of an irregularly fused staminal column.” (“Morphological characters suggest placement within B. sect. Pauletia, supported by its tubular or clavate flower buds, tubular hypanthium, white linear petals, and an irregularly fused staminal column.”

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 6, lines 132-134)

 

15. Reviewer question: Repetition of full section/series names ("B. sect. Pauletia Cansenia") should be reduced by introducing abbreviations after first use (e.g., “B. sect. Pauletia ser. Cansenia (hereafter: Cansenia)”).

Authors: Accepted suggestion

 

16. Reviewer question: Ambiguity in logic: “However, it is important to emphasize that both B. sect. Pauletia and sect. Pauletia ser. Cansenia were recovered as polyphyletic.”

You could clarify this with: "Although morphology supports placement in Cansenia, our phylogeny reveals that both the section and series may be polyphyletic, challenging current classification systems."

Authors: Accepted suggestion (6, lines 138-139)

 

17. Reviewer question: Smooth transitions are lacking: Introduce contrast markers more deliberately: e.g., "Unlike cupulata, which shows...", "In contrast, B. latistipulata displays..."

Authors: We have partially incorporated your suggestion (page 6, line 149)

 

18. Reviewer question: Table 1: is helpful, but its integration into the text could be clearer. Consider referencing specific diagnostic features from the table directly in discussion.

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 6, line 148)

 

19. Reviewer question: Taxonomic Treatment: Diagnosis sentence structure: "Bauhinia latistipulata is distinguished from other members of B. ser. Cansenia by its reniform stipules and cymbiform bracts, as well as its hirsute abaxial leaf surface, tubular and ribbed flower buds, and white-tomentose ovary." "Shrubs to small trees": this is clear, but you could add height range parenthetically (0.5–2.0 m).

Authors: We have partially incorporated your suggestion (page 7, lines 163-165)

 

20. Reviewer question: Avoid overly technical stacking: e.g., “Branches unarmed, sulcate, cylindrical, villous…” could be broken into: “Branches unarmed, cylindrical and sulcate, covered with reddish glandular trichomes.”

Authors: Accepted suggestion (page 7, lines 169-170)

 

21. Reviewer question: Figure & Table Comments: Excellent structure, but the figure legends are too brief. Suggest spelling out full labels: e.g., "S" = stamen, "G" = gynoecium. In Figure 3: the caption is long and somewhat meandering. Split it for clarity (e.g., habit, stipules, inflorescence, fruit).

Authors: We have made the requested changes to the caption for Figure 3.

 

22. Reviewer question: Table 1: Highly useful. However: Capitalization of traits (e.g., “Stipules”) should be consistent with journal style. “Bracteoles” vs “Bracts” – might need a brief footnote on definition if not obvious to non-specialists. Consider adding one diagnostic line for "Inflorescence type" if relevant.

Authors: We decided to don’t include the footnote as suggested. The information is not relevant.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript contains a description of a new species of Bauhinia from the Brazilian Cerrado. According to the description, based on floral morphology, the species can be classified into the Bauhinia sect. Pauletia ser. Cansenia group, but its vegetative characteristics distinguish it from all other known members. To clarify its taxonomic position, detailed morphological comparisons were conducted, and molecular phylogenetic analyses were also performed using the ribosomal ITS region and two plastid markers (matK and trnL-F). The results support the classification of this new species into the Bauhinia ser. Cansenia group. The new species, named B. latistipulata sp. nov., is easily recognizable. It is a valuable piece of work.

 

Abstract: Title: avoid subjective “new notable species”. Prefer:  “A new species of Bauhinia (Fabaceae: Cercidoideae) from the Brazilian Cerrado: morphological and phylogenetic evidence.” Make “morphologic/morphological” consistent (use morphological).

Content & Methods: The abstract states nrITS + two plastid markers (matK, trnL–F) but omits analytical details (ML/BI, partitioning, dataset size, sampling breadth) and support values. Add one clause: method and key support (e.g., ML/BI; BS=…, PP=…).
Specify the closest relatives recovered by the tree (if any). One short sentence is enough.
Terminology & Formatting: Use nrITS and trnL–F (en dash).
Italicize taxon names (Bauhinia, Pauletia, Cansenia); keep rank abbreviations roman.
Replace stacked “vs.” with prose (rather than, in contrast to).
Logic/Consistency: You list tomentose ovary as a similarity to B. ungulata, then later contrast white-tomentose vs ferruginous-tomentose. Clarify that the indumentum colour differs (not the presence of tomentum).

Keywords: Align with the title: use Fabaceae (not Leguminosae).
Include method-oriented terms: nrITS; matK; trnL–F; Pauletia; Cerrado; taxonomy.

 

Introduction: Inconsistency in family name. Title: Fabaceae
Keywords: Leguminosae. Should be unified (recommended: Fabaceae).

Long and overloaded sentence structures: Several sentences contain heavy enumerations (species counts, distribution, sections), which reduce readability. Breaking them into shorter units would improve clarity. Lack of ecological context: The Cerrado’s biodiversity importance and conservation threats are not mentioned, though they would strengthen the justification for describing the new species.

 

Materials and methods: Missing GenBank accession numbers – All sequences used from databases (matK, trnL–F) must be cited with their accession numbers. Unclear sampling of the new species – The number of individuals or vouchers of the new taxon included in the phylogenetic dataset is not specified. No description of sequence alignment or tree-building methods – The software (e.g., MAFFT, MUSCLE) and phylogenetic approach (Maximum Likelihood, Bayesian Inference, etc.) are not reported.
Support values not indicated – It is unclear how branch support was assessed (bootstrap, posterior probability) and no thresholds are mentioned.
Incomplete PCR and sequencing details – Primers are cited, but PCR cycling parameters and the sequencing platform (e.g., Sanger) are missing. Terminology inconsistency – Both ITS and nrITS, and trnL-F vs trnL–F, are used. These should be standardized to nrITS and trnL–F (with en dash).Overly long sentences – Some sentences, particularly those listing sampling details, are cumbersome and would benefit from splitting into shorter units for clarity.

Results: The Results section repeats methodological details (e.g., “Bayesian Inference tree, ML bootstrap percentages ≥50%”). These belong in Materials and Methods; in Results a short reference suffices.
Overly long, dense sentences: Several sentences combine multiple clades, BI/ML values, and morphological comparisons. Breaking them into shorter statements would improve readability.
Incomplete reporting of support values: Not all major clades are accompanied by both BI posterior probabilities and ML bootstrap values. For clarity and transparency, the most relevant nodes—especially the placement of the new species—should always include both values.
Inconsistent terminology: “BP”, “ML bootstrap”, and “bootstrap percentages” are used interchangeably. Use one standard term (e.g., ML bootstrap support, BS).
Posterior probabilities appear sometimes as decimals (0.99) and sometimes as integers (1). A consistent format is needed.
Link between text and figure: Figure 1 shows labeled clades (A–E), but the text refers to them only indirectly. The narrative should explicitly mention these clade labels and summarize their meaning.
Placement of the new species not fully explicit: While the tree indicates its position, the text does not clearly state whether the new species is monophyletic and how strongly supported its placement is. One sentence with BI/ML values would strengthen this.

Discussion: Some parts interpret results in terms of polyphyly of sections or broader classification issues. These belong in the Discussion. The Results should focus on factual reporting (tree topology, support values, morphology table reference).
Figure caption precision: The caption should specify: “50% majority-rule consensus tree from Bayesian Inference (BI) analysis, with ML bootstrap percentages (BP ≥ 50%) indicated above branches and posterior probabilities below.”
Several sentences repeat statements already presented in the Abstract or Results (e.g., morphological traits, polyphyly of Cansenia). The Discussion should focus on interpretation and broader implications instead of repetition.
Excessive morphological detail: Too many fine-scale characters (e.g., stipule size, sepal apex form) are described. These belong to the Description section; in the Discussion only their diagnostic or comparative value should be emphasized.
Incomplete phylogenetic interpretation: Although polyphyly of Cansenia is mentioned, the implications for the placement of the new species are not fully explored.
The relationship to earlier phylogenetic studies (e.g., Sinou et al., Vaz & Tozzi) is not sufficiently discussed.
Missing ecological/biogeographic context: The Cerrado distribution of the new species is noted, but there is little discussion of its significance for diversity, endemism, or adaptation within the section.
Inconsistent naming and formatting: Species names alternate between abbreviated (e.g., B. ungulata) and full forms without clear rule. Abbreviated forms should be used consistently after the first mention.
Comparisons rely heavily on “vs.”, which makes sentences difficult to read. Full sentences would improve clarity.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor

We are pleased that the few minor corrections were sent by the editor and a single reviewer at this review round. Most of which have been incorporated into the new version. It is weird that the reviewer missed important sections of the methods, which according to him are missing in the text, but are clearly included. In addition to providing a corrected clean copy, we have included file highlighting all modifications track changes (Word). Below, we provide a point-by-point description of these changes.

Editor: Dear Dr. Pessoa, Thanks for your detailed revision of the paper. Some modifications are still needed to improve the quality of the paper. Most of the below comments are highlighted in green in the attached file

- Figure 1. The color of the B. sect. Afrobauhinia is not changed to white to make easier its reading. In addition, Add that the posterior probabilities are related to BI as you have done or ML and BP.

Answer: The current proof file included an old version of figure 1. We edited it following the suggestions of the reviewers. I believe the copy editor included the wrong version. So we added the correct figure now. We also added that the posterior probabilities are related to BI in the legend

- Some words are written in Spanish or Portuguese (e.g. Clado). Review the whole manuscript and change them to English.

Answer: Done

- The genus Bauhinia is not always written in italics. Review the whole manuscript.

Answer: Done

- In m&m, write the description of the phylogenetic support of BI and ML, after each respectively analysis. So, it is easier to elucidate which one corresponds to each one, with doubt.

Answer: Done

 - In the response letter and regarding to the selected model for phylogenetic analyses, you have written GTS+G, but in the manuscript, i can read GTR+G. Which ones is the correct one?

Answer: Sorry. It was a typo. There is no GTS model.

- Reviewer 5, asked you about the number of studied specimens. Based on your answer, I can read ‘single specimen for specimen’, what does it mean? I can assume that you refer that you have use a unique specimen per species. I would advice you for further studies, that if you include more than one specimen per species, you can infer that each species is clearly monophyletic, and your studies would be better supported.

Answer: Sorry again. Your assumption is correct, we used one specimen per species.

 - I can observe that there are a few ITS sequences. That may interfere on the final resolution and relationships among the obtained clades. Do you have obtained a low resolution using only ITS sequences? (many collapsed phylogenetic relationships?) That might be influencing on your final results. Your final part of the first paragraph of the discussion about the phylogenetic relationships between some sections and series might be also supported by this situation.

Answer: Thank you for this observation. We included new sentences in the end of this paragraph discussing this situation: Our results therefore provide the first evidence for the non-monophyly of this series when considering broader sampling. However, we acknowledge that our dataset includes a limited number of ITS sequences, which may reduce phylogenetic resolution and lead to some collapsed relationships within clades. This limited resolution could partially influence the inferred non-monophyly of ser. Cansenia. Nevertheless, its division in two well-supported clades is consistent across both Bayesian Inference and Maximum Likelihood analyses, suggesting that the observed topology is not solely an artifact of marker choice.

 - I would recommend not to add the figures 2 and 3 just after the name of the new species, maybe better after the type and diagnosis.

Answer: Done

 

 - In the plant description, do not use abbreviation as ‘compr.’

Answer: Done

- Appendix A, why the table is broken so many times? Review the final format. Answer: We corrected it.

- Add the specific number of the vouchers for any mentioned herbaria, as K000807912. Review this aspect for all the mentioned vouchers and all the herbaria. This is essential to identify each mentioned voucher.

Answer: We added barcodes for all specimens cited as paratypes.

- Related to isotypes: are there not more specimens kept at UFMT?

Answer: No. As usual in botany a single specimen is kept in each herbarium.

 

Reviewer

- The manuscript contains a description of a new species of Bauhinia from the Brazilian Cerrado. According to the description, based on floral morphology, the species can be classified into the Bauhinia sect. Pauletia ser. Cansenia group, but its vegetative characteristics distinguish it from all other known members. To clarify its taxonomic position, detailed morphological comparisons were conducted, and molecular phylogenetic analyses were also performed using the ribosomal ITS region and two plastid markers (matK and trnL-F). The results support the classification of this new species into the Bauhinia ser. Cansenia group. The new species, named B. latistipulata sp. nov., is easily recognizable. It is a valuable piece of work.

 Answer: we acknowledge the good overview of our ms.

- Abstract: Title: avoid subjective “new notable species”. Prefer:  “A new species of Bauhinia (Fabaceae: Cercidoideae) from the Brazilian Cerrado: morphological and phylogenetic evidence.” Make “morphologic/morphological” consistent (use morphological).

 Answer: Done

Content & Methods: 

- The abstract states nrITS + two plastid markers (matK, trnL–F) but omits analytical details (ML/BI, partitioning, dataset size, sampling breadth) and support values. Add one clause: method and key support (e.g., ML/BI; BS=…, PP=…).

Answer: we added some extra information in the abstract regarding the analyses.

- Specify the closest relatives recovered by the tree (if any). One short sentence is enough.

Answer: There are five species in a polytomy that are related to the new species. Citing all would be too much for the abstract.

- Terminology & Formatting: Use nrITS and trnL–F (en dash).

Answer: done

- Italicize taxon names (Bauhinia, Pauletia, Cansenia); keep rank abbreviations roman.

Answer: done

- Replace stacked “vs.” with prose (rather than, in contrast to).

Answer: We prefer keeping “vs.” that is widely used in taxonomy to compare species.

- Logic/Consistency: You list tomentose ovary as a similarity to B. ungulata, then later contrast white-tomentose vs ferruginous-tomentose. Clarify that the indumentum colour differs (not the presence of tomentum).
Answer: done in both abstract and diagnosis

- Keywords: Align with the title: use Fabaceae (not Leguminosae).
Include method-oriented terms: nrITS; matK; trnL–F; Pauletia; Cerrado; taxonomy.

 Answer: we added Pauletia and Cansenia, and removed “Bauhnia taxonomy”

- Introduction: Inconsistency in family name. Title: Fabaceae
Keywords: Leguminosae. Should be unified (recommended: Fabaceae).

Answer: It is not inconsistency, both names are accepted. We included “Leguminosae” among the keywords to expand possibilities of search.

- Long and overloaded sentence structures: Several sentences contain heavy enumerations (species counts, distribution, sections), which reduce readability. Breaking them into shorter units would improve clarity. Lack of ecological context: The Cerrado’s biodiversity importance and conservation threats are not mentioned, though they would strengthen the justification for describing the new species.

 Answer: We found very few sentences that were longer than 40 words. We tried our best to divide them when possible.

- Materials and methods: Missing GenBank accession numbers – All sequences used from databases (matK, trnL–F) must be cited with their accession numbers.

Answer: These are listed in the appendix A.

- Unclear sampling of the new species – The number of individuals or vouchers of the new taxon included in the phylogenetic dataset is not specified.

Answer: The type specimen of the new species served as voucher for the sequences we generated.

- No description of sequence alignment or tree-building methods – The software (e.g., MAFFT, MUSCLE) and phylogenetic approach (Maximum Likelihood, Bayesian Inference, etc.) are not reported.

Answer: That is not true.  The description of the sequence alignment and tree-building methods are clearly included: For alignment we used the MUSCLE [28] plugin implemented on Geneious. Substitution models for each region were selected using JModelTest v.2.1.10 [29] with the Bayesian information criterion. We employed GTR+G for all regions. Bayesian inference (BI) used MrBayes v.3.2.7a [30]; implemented at the CIPRES Science Gateway portal [31], using two independent runs with four chains each with Markov chain Monte Carlo parameters (MCMC) defined for 40,000,000 generations sampling every 4,000 trees. The first 2,500 trees were discarded as burn-in (25%). Convergence between the runs were verified using Tracer v.1.6 looking for ESS values above 200 [32]. Clades with ≥ 0.95 posterior probability (PP) were considered strongly supported, and between 0.94 and 0.85 were classified as moderately supported. Maximum likelihood (ML) was performed using RAxML v.8.1.20 [33], also implemented at the CIPRES Science Gateway portal, with 1000 pseudoreplicates of thorough bootstrap using the same models cited above. Clades with bootstrap percentages (BP) ≥ 85% were considered strongly supported, and between 0.84 and 0.70 moderately supported [34,35,36]. The trees were edited using the software FigTree v.1.4.4 [37].

- Support values not indicated – It is unclear how branch support was assessed (bootstrap, posterior probability) and no thresholds are mentioned.

Answer: That is not true.  The description of how branch support was assessed is clearly included: For Bayesian inference (BI) we used MrBayes v.3.2.7a [30]; implemented at the CIPRES Science Gateway portal [31], using two independent runs with four chains each with Markov chain Monte Carlo parameters (MCMC) defined for 40,000,000 generations sampling every 4,000 trees. The first 2,500 trees were discarded as burn-in (25%). Clades with ≥ 0.95 posterior probability (PP) were considered strongly supported, and between 0.94 and 0.85 were classified as moderately supported. Maximum likelihood (ML) was performed using RAxML v.8.1.20 [33], also implemented at the CIPRES Science Gateway portal, with 1000 pseudoreplicates of thorough bootstrap using the same models cited above. Clades with bootstrap percentages (BP) ≥ 85% were considered strongly supported, and between 0.84 and 0.70 moderately supported [34,35,36].

- Incomplete PCR and sequencing details – Primers are cited, but PCR cycling parameters and the sequencing platform (e.g., Sanger) are missing.

Answer: That is not true.  The description of PCR and sequencing details are clearly included: Total DNA was extracted from 50 mg of silica-gel-dried tissue using the 2×CTAB method [25]. The primers C and F from Taberlet et al. [26] were used for amplify the plastid trnL–F spacer region. For nuclear ribosomal ITS (nrITS; ITS1+5.8S+ITS2) we used the primers of Sun et al. [27]. PCRs were carried out using a final volume of 25μl: 12.5 μL of Dream TAq mix (Thermofisher), 0.5 μL forward primer, 0.5 μL reverse primer, 10.5 μL H₂O and 1 μL total DNA. A specific program was used for each primer pair, with the following temperature changes: trnL–F, 94°C for 1 min.; 35 cycles of 94°C for 30 seg., 53°C for 40 seg., 72°C for 40 seg.; followed by a final extension at 72°C for 5 min; nrITS, 94°C for 3 min.; 35 cycles of 94°C for 45 seg., 56°C for 1 min., 72°C for 2 min.; followed by a final extension at 72°C for 5 min. The PCR products were then prepared for sequencing using a BigDye® Terminator v. 3.1 Cycle Sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems), and sequenced with an ABI3730xl Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems).

- Terminology inconsistency – Both ITS and nrITS, and trnL-F vs trnL–F, are used. These should be standardized to nrITS and trnL–F (with en dash).

Answer: done

- Overly long sentences – Some sentences, particularly those listing sampling details, are cumbersome and would benefit from splitting into shorter units for clarity.

Answer: We found very few sentences that were longer than 40 words. We tried our best to divide them when possible.

 

- Results: The Results section repeats methodological details (e.g., “Bayesian Inference tree, ML bootstrap percentages ≥50%”). These belong in Materials and Methods; in Results a short reference suffices.

Answer: This sentence “Bayesian Inference tree, ML bootstrap percentages ≥50%” is not in our results. I’m not sure the reviewer received the correct file.

- Overly long, dense sentences: Several sentences combine multiple clades, BI/ML values, and morphological comparisons. Breaking them into shorter statements would improve readability.

Answer: We found very few sentences that were longer than 40 words. We tried our best to divide them when possible.

- Incomplete reporting of support values: Not all major clades are accompanied by both BI posterior probabilities and ML bootstrap values. For clarity and transparency, the most relevant nodes—especially the placement of the new species—should always include both values.

Answer: we believe the reviewer is talking about the figure 1. All major clades include both BI posterior probabilities and ML bootstrap values. Among the ones close to the new species, there is a single one without ML bootstrap values because the clade was not recovered by ML. So there is nothing to include.

- Inconsistent terminology: “BP”, “ML bootstrap”, and “bootstrap percentages” are used interchangeably. Use one standard term (e.g., ML bootstrap support, BS).

Answer: That is not true, we used only “BP” along the text. These other versions are only in the references.

- Posterior probabilities appear sometimes as decimals (0.99) and sometimes as integers (1). A consistent format is needed.

Answer: yes, 0.99 is not the same as 1.

- Link between text and figure: Figure 1 shows labeled clades (A–E), but the text refers to them only indirectly. The narrative should explicitly mention these clade labels and summarize their meaning.

Answer: All clades are cited in the text.

- Placement of the new species not fully explicit: While the tree indicates its position, the text does not clearly state whether the new species is monophyletic and how strongly supported its placement is. One sentence with BI/ML values would strengthen this.

Answer: it is clearly described: Although all species in Clade E belong to B. sect. Pauletia ser. Cansenia, their internal relationships lacks support. The new species was found within a polytomy alongside B. longicuspis Spruce ex Benth., B. pulchella Benth., B. rufa (Bong.) Steud., B. subclavata Benth., and B. ungulata L. Other species of B. ser. Cansenia were placed in Clade C, rendering the series polyphyletic.

- Discussion: Some parts interpret results in terms of polyphyly of sections or broader classification issues. These belong in the Discussion. The Results should focus on factual reporting (tree topology, support values, morphology table reference).

Answer: the results are already very short.

- Figure caption precision: The caption should specify: “50% majority-rule consensus tree from Bayesian Inference (BI) analysis, with ML bootstrap percentages (BP ≥ 50%) indicated above branches and posterior probabilities below.”

Answer: it is specified in the figure legend

- Several sentences repeat statements already presented in the Abstract or Results (e.g., morphological traits, polyphyly of Cansenia). The Discussion should focus on interpretation and broader implications instead of repetition.
Excessive morphological detail: Too many fine-scale characters (e.g., stipule size, sepal apex form) are described. These belong to the Description section; in the Discussion only their diagnostic or comparative value should be emphasized.

Answer: This is a paper describing a new taxon, so this fine details in the discussion is usual.
- Incomplete phylogenetic interpretation: Although polyphyly of Cansenia is mentioned, the implications for the placement of the new species are not fully explored.
The relationship to earlier phylogenetic studies (e.g., Sinou et al., Vaz & Tozzi) is not sufficiently discussed.

Answer: Thank you for this observation. We included new sentences in the end of this paragraph discussing this situation: Our results therefore provide the first evidence for the non-monophyly of this series when considering broader sampling. However, we acknowledge that our dataset includes a limited number of ITS sequences, which may reduce phylogenetic resolution and lead to some collapsed relationships within clades. This limited resolution could partially influence the inferred non-monophyly of ser. Cansenia. Nevertheless, its division in two well-supported clades is consistent across both Bayesian Inference and Maximum Likelihood analyses, suggesting that the observed topology is not solely an artifact of marker choice.

- Missing ecological/biogeographic context: The Cerrado distribution of the new species is noted, but there is little discussion of its significance for diversity, endemism, or adaptation within the section.

Answer: It is not the scope of this paper but we added a new sentence in the section of Distribution and Ecology: Most species of ser. Cansenia occur in the Cerrado, a biodiversity hotspot that includes some of the main centers of diversity for the genus. [38].

- Inconsistent naming and formatting: Species names alternate between abbreviated (e.g., B. ungulata) and full forms without clear rule. Abbreviated forms should be used consistently after the first mention.
Answer: There is no inconsistence along the text

- Comparisons rely heavily on “vs.”, which makes sentences difficult to read. Full sentences would improve clarity.

Answer: We prefer keeping “vs.” that is widely used in taxonomy to compare species.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf