Two New Species of Philodendron from the Atlantic Forest of Southeastern Brazil^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not describe the cataphylls in sufficient detail, nor are the basal veins and  the posterior ribs.  Moreover type specimens should not be singular collections in one place. This is a very bad practice. Why is the not more fully distributed? For detailed comments, please refer to the PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file.

Comments1: The term ‘hemiepiphyte’ should be discontinued according to G. Zotz who says that climbers really never lose all connection to the ground and thus do not fit the definition of ‘hemiepiphyte’. He encourages the use of ‘nomadic vines’ instead. I prefer to call them epiphytic climbers or appressed-climbing epiphytes which does not conflict with their growth form and does not sound so goofy. 

Response 1: We opted to retain the term “hemiepiphyte”, rather than the alternative terminology suggested, as it is more widely used and recognized within the nomenclature of Araceae.

Comments 2: It is critical to state whether the cataphyll is 1 or 2-ribbed, sharply or bluntly ribbed, unribbed, color? Are none of these things know?

Response 2: Cataphylls and prophylls are not commonly used as diagnostic characters in Philodendron species. For this reason, we believe that describing only the length and coloration of the prophylls is sufficient for species identification.

Comments 3: Is the anterior lobe different in width from the entire blade? If so why is its width given at all?

Response 3:  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, this change can be found in line 69 "anterior lobes 22–28.4 cm; posterior lobes 11.8–15 cm"

Comments 4: In what way is the shape and color of P. ruthianum different?

Response 4:  this change can be found in lines 81-85, we explained with more details the diferences between the species. 

Comments 5: Is M.S.Wangler male or female?

Response 5: Marília Suzy Wängler is a female researcher. Therefore, we corrected the specific epithet to P. waenglerae in accordance with the rules of botanical nomenclature for honoring women.

Comments 6: I assume that this is the "diagnosis". It should be label as such

Responde 6: Thank you for pointing this out, we agree, and label the diagnosis. this chance can be found in lines 60 and 126

Comments 7: You have three nouns in this phrase, blade apex and base, without any ponctuation to separete.

Response 7: We agree with this comment, and we changed the phrase to "Leaf blade 41.4 ×13.5–14 cm, ovate, greenish-discolor, membranaceous; base obtuse in juveniles, cordate in adults; apex acute–acuminate, parabolic sinus."

Comments 8: If more than 1, how many ovules.

Response 8: We agreed to change this part of comparsion and to improve the caracteres. This changes can be find in lines 145-151.

Comments 9: For research articles with several authors, the following statements should be used “Conceptualization, X.X. and Y.Y.; methodology, X.X.; software, X.X.; validation, X.X., Y.Y. and Z.Z.; formal analysis, X.X.; investigation, X.X.; resources, X.X.; data curation, X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X.; writing—review and editing, X.X.; visualization, X.X.; supervision, X.X.; project administration, X.X.; funding acquisition, Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Response 9: We added wath each author contributed, in lines 213-218

Comments 10: Please add: This research received no external funding or This research was funded by [name of funder] grant number [xxx] And The APC was funded by [XXX]. Information regarding the funder and the funding number should be provided. Please check the accuracy of funding data and any other information carefully.

Response 10: We added the funding, in lines 219-221

Comments 11: Add the  acknowledges 

Response 11: We add the  acknowledges in lines 227-229

Comments 12: Declare conflicts of interest or state “The authors declare no conflict of interest."

Response 12: The authors declare no conflict of interest in line 230.

Comments 13: Data Availability Statement:

Response 13: We agreed with this comment, the changes can be found in lines 222-226

Comments 14: Moreover type specimens should not be singular collections in one place. This is a very bad practice. Why is the not more fully distributed?

Response 14: Unfortunately, we were able to collect only a single individual of each species, which made it impossible to prepare and distribute duplicate specimens to additional herbaria. We emphasize, however, that should new collections become available in the future, duplicates will certainly be prepared and deposited in other institutions.

- Additional clarifications

As the reviewers will notice, we added an additional co-author to the manuscript. She contributed significantly to manuscript preparation, including assistance with the English translation.

Thank you again for all the comments

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled “Two new species of Philodendron from the Atlantic Forest of Southeastern Brazil”. While the topic is relevant to the journal’s scope, I regret to inform you that, in its current form, the manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication in Taxonomy.

 

The descriptions provided for the new species are insufficiently detailed, and the diagnoses lack clear and diagnostic characters to distinguish the proposed taxa from their congeners. The illustrations and photographic plates are also of poor quality, making it difficult to properly evaluate the morphological features. These weaknesses result in an imprecise and poorly supported taxonomic treatment.

 

In particular, the treatment of Philodendron sect. Schizophyllum (Schott) Engl. is problematic, as the current manuscript adds to the existing taxonomic confusion rather than clarifying it. A more comprehensive morphological analysis, including comparisons with type specimens and a critical review of related taxa, would be necessary to justify the recognition of the proposed species.

 

Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript be rejected in its current form. However, I encourage the authors to substantially revise and strengthen their work — particularly by improving the diagnoses, providing better photographic documentation, and expanding the comparative discussion.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript

Comments 1: The descriptions provided for the new species are insufficiently detailed, and the diagnoses lack clear and diagnostic characters to distinguish the proposed taxa from their congeners. The illustrations and photographic plates are also of poor quality, making it difficult to properly evaluate the morphological features. These weaknesses result in an imprecise and poorly supported taxonomic treatment.

Response 1: The diagnoses now explicitly highlight the characters that distinguish the proposed taxa from their most morphologically similar congeners, this changes can be found in lines 80-85 and 145-151. Unfortunately, no higher-resolution photographs are available, as only a limited number of individuals could be located in the field under challenging conditions. We also emphasize that the detailed descriptions provide sufficient morphological information to allow for reliable identification of the species.

Comments 2: In particular, the treatment of Philodendron sect. Schizophyllum (Schott) Engl. is problematic, as the current manuscript adds to the existing taxonomic confusion rather than clarifying it. A more comprehensive morphological analysis, including comparisons with type specimens and a critical review of related taxa, would be necessary to justify the recognition of the proposed species.

Response 2: The treatment of the species of section Schizophyllum is very clear, contributing to clarifying the taxonomy of the group. The authors included the new species in the identification key, using the necessary characters that distinguish the new species from the others.

Thank you again for taking the time to read our manuscript and for the comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper dealing with description of two new species of Philodendron. For detailed comments on individual issues, please see below.

 

Line 10: They -> Both species

 

Line 18: what family?

 

Line 20: Present -> occurs

 

Line 21: in the -> across the

 

Line 23: Add ‘ranging’ in front of from

 

Lines 24-28: Should combined into Line 29.

 

Line 24: into -> within

 

Line 27: being -> and is

 

Lines 46-48: Suggestion changes: Despite its relatively small territorial area compared to other states in the Southeastern Region, Rio de Janeiro retains the best preserved remnants of Atlantic Forest vegetation.

 

Line 48： What kind of scenario?

 

Line 160: Suggestion changes: ......, covering an area of aprroximately 816.8 km² at an altitude of about 632 meters.

 

Line 166: comma move to in front ‘and’.

Line 167: not in a -> located outside

Lines 167-168: the importance of knowing ... species -> identifying and monitoring degraded forest areas becomes increasingly important for their conservation.

Line 171: in -> at

Lines 177-184： Combine into a paragraph.

Line 195: usual -> standard. Put fullstop after Mayo et al.

Line 195-197: Suggestion change: For leaf blade architecture, the guidelines of Ellis et al. was used, and for the nomenclature of sinus formation, those of Croat & Bunting.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below.

Comments 1 to 10: Line 10: They -> Both species; Line 18: what family?; Line 20: Present -> occurs; Line 21: in the -> across the; Line 23: Add ‘ranging’ in front of from; Lines 24-28: Should combined into Line 29.; Line 24: into -> within; Line 27: being -> and is; Lines 46-48: Suggestion changes: Despite its relatively small territorial area compared to other states in the Southeastern Region, Rio de Janeiro retains the best preserved remnants of Atlantic Forest vegetation; Line 48： What kind of scenario?

Response 1-10: We agreed with all the comments, the  corrections can be found in the lines 11; 20; 23; 24;  27-30 and 47-52. 

Comments 11-14: Line 160: Suggestion changes: ......, covering an area of aprroximately 816.8 km² at an altitude of about 632 meters; Line 166: comma move to in front ‘and’; Line 167: not in a -> located outside; Lines 167-168: the importance of knowing ... species -> identifying and monitoring degraded forest areas becomes increasingly important for their conservation.

Response 11-14: We agreed with all the comments, the  corrections can be found in the lines 167-168; 174-176.

Comments 15: Line 171: in -> at

Response 15: we believe that “in” is the appropriate preposition, as Santa Maria Madalena is situated within a broader geographical region (the mountainous region of Rio de Janeiro). Therefore, we have retained the use of “in” in the revised manuscript.

Comments 16-18: Lines 177-184： Combine into a paragraph; Line 195: usual -> standard. Put fullstop after Mayo et al.; Line 195-197: Suggestion change: For leaf blade architecture, the guidelines of Ellis et al. was used, and for the nomenclature of sinus formation, those of Croat & Bunting.

Response 16-18: We agreed with this comments, this changes can be found in lines 185-190; 202; 203;

Thank you again for all the comments in our manuscript. 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments and Recommendations

This manuscript describes two new endemic species of Philodendron from the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro state, providing valuable additions to our understanding of Brazilian Araceae diversity. The taxonomic descriptions are generally thorough, and the discovery of these species in non-protected areas underscores the importance of continued floristic surveys. However, several issues require attention before publication, particularly regarding consistency in the species descriptions and key, as well as the need for more detailed conservation assessments.

Major Comments

• The table indicates "Apical sterile zone: absent" for P. wanglerae, but line 137 clearly describes a 4 cm pinkish apical sterile zone. This contradiction must be resolved.
• P. baumgratzii is described "absence of terminal sterile appendix" (line 74, 80-81), which needs clarification since this is a key diagnostic feature distinguishing it from P. ruthianum.
• The updated key for section Schizophyllum (lines 83-105) has spacing and alignment issues that make it difficult to follow. Consider reformatting for clarity.
• While the authors note data are insufficient for IUCN categorization, more specific information on population size estimates, observed threats, and habitat quality would strengthen the conservation discussion.
• The distinctions between P. baumgratzii and closely related species (P. nadruzianum, P. ruthianum) could be presented more clearly in a detailed comparative table.

Minor Comments

• The etymology sections are brief. Consider expanding slightly to provide context about why these researchers are being honored.
• Some measurements lack appropriate precision or sample size information (e.g., "8–28.3 cm" for petiole length in P. wanglerae - was this from multiple specimens?).
• Line 62: "Prophyll 27.5 cm long" - only a single measurement provided; include range if multiple specimens examined.
• Lines 86-87: Formatting issue with "P. pinnatilobum" - extra spacing.
• Consider adding scale bars to Figures 1 and 2 or indicating magnification levels more clearly.
• The Materials and Methods section could benefit from stating how many specimens of each species were examined for the descriptions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below.

Comments 1: The table indicates "Apical sterile zone: absent" for P. wanglerae, but line 137 clearly describes a 4 cm pinkish apical sterile zone. This contradiction must be resolved.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out, we corrected the mistake. this changes can be found in line 152.

Comments 2: P. baumgratzii is described "absence of terminal sterile appendix" (line 74, 80-81), which needs clarification since this is a key diagnostic feature distinguishing it from P. ruthianum.

Response 2:  we clarified the description regarding the absence of a terminal sterile appendix in P. baumgratzii. This condition is indeed a key diagnostic feature that separates it from P. ruthianum, which possesses a well-developed terminal sterile appendix.  this changes are in lines 76, and 84-85. 

Comments 3: The updated key for section Schizophyllum (lines 83-105) has spacing and alignment issues that make it difficult to follow. Consider reformatting for clarity.

Response 3: We fixed the alignment in lines 88-108.

Comments 4: While the authors note data are insufficient for IUCN categorization, more specific information on population size estimates, observed threats, and habitat quality would strengthen the conservation discussion.

Response 4: We changed the IUCN category using the AOO and EOO calcules. This changes can be found in lines 181-183.

Comments 5: The distinctions between P. baumgratzii and closely related species (P. nadruzianum, P. ruthianum) could be presented more clearly in a detailed comparative table.

Response 5: we presented more clealry those distinctions not in table, but in text, in lines 80-84. 

Comments 6: The etymology sections are brief. Consider expanding slightly to provide context about why these researchers are being honored.

Response 6: We expand a bit this section, you can see this changes in lines 115-118 and 159-161.

Comments 7: Some measurements lack appropriate precision or sample size information (e.g., "8–28.3 cm" for petiole length in P. wanglerae - was this from multiple specimens?).

Response 7: With regard to the number of specimens analyzed, all examined collections used for morphological measurements are fully detailed in the Materials and Methods section. Therefore, the measurements provided (e.g., “8–28.3 cm” for petiole length) indeed derive from the range observed across the available specimens.

Comments 8: Line 62: "Prophyll 27.5 cm long" - only a single measurement provided; include range if multiple specimens examined.

Response 8: we corret this mistake, in line 65. 

Comments 9: Lines 86-87: Formatting issue with "P. pinnatilobum" - extra spacing.

Response 9: we corret this mistake, in line 91.

Comments 10: Consider adding scale bars to Figures 1 and 2 or indicating magnification levels more clearly.

Response 10: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. In this case, we decided not to include scale bars in Figures 1 and 2 because all relevant measurements of the diagnostic structures are already provided in detail in the species descriptions. Since the figures serve primarily as complementary visual aids rather than precise morphometric references, we believe that the extensive quantitative information in the text sufficiently supports species identification. For this reason, we have chosen to retain the figures as originally presented.

Comments 11: The Materials and Methods section could benefit from stating how many specimens of each species were examined for the descriptions.

Response 11: he number of specimens examined for each species is already fully detailed in the “Examined Material” section, which lists all collections used in the descriptions.

Thank you again for all the comments in our manuscript.