Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a beautifully illustrated descriptive account by LM and SEM of 73 dinophysoid dinoflagellates of the tropical Mexican Pacific & Gulf of Mexico. This represents a significant body of work over tens of years well worth publishing in this format. The only suggestion for improvement is to add more interpretation in section 4.2, comparing this flora with  eg similar Australian works (Wood; Hallegraeff), SW Atlantic (Balech),  and notably the original Kofoid & Skogsberg 1928 monograph from the Eastern Pacific (132 species). The 2001-2010 collection period used here needs to be made more explicit (even in the title; how many samples were available?), but some discussion is called for also of different collection methods (deep or surface nets, bottles), light vs electron microscopy, or even loss of taxonomic skills and experts. This paper would benefit from a summary table of taxa observed, with the important cell numbers recorded tabulated (now hidden in the text; some species common n=40 to 70 but many others very rare n=1 or 2). The large number of single cell observations is noteworthy.

line 20. may become= can be?

line 54. note that in many countries (eg New Zealand) pectenotoxins are not regulated (not considered of human health significance)

line 73. separated from

Line 83. As part of a revision... 7 new species records were annotated and 1 new species were described. Both littoral species

line 92. separate

line 97. from the

line 137 insert space between Citharistes and Dinophysis; same line 283, 478, and for all other genera

line 207. time ago= specify

Fig. 91 is of poor quality!

Fig legend  fig.5 and fig.6  species names in italics

Fig.1. Shade the water, distinct from the white land

line 727. How many cells of Dinofurcula were observed

Fig.12. legend : lemmermanni

line 867. 34% of total Dinophysales described in the literature?

line 869. one record: spell out species

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All orthographic and grammatical points annotated by this reviewer were followed and corrected, except:

• Pectenotoxins: this toxin was included in the context of the toxins associated to the presence of certain dinophysosid species, particularly Dinophysis and Phalacroma
• Lines 83: the meaning of this paragraph was better defined.
• Figure 91: the authors tried to get a better image of this species but as it was extremely rare, it was not possible to find or produce a new photo or image.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors discussed the morphological diversity of Planktonic Dinophysales (Dinoflagellata) in the Tropical Mexican Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. Below are my comments:

1. The manuscript should include a distinct Conclusion section summarising the main findings, including species diversity, new records, and their implications.
2. The four new records reported (three for the Mexican Pacific and one for the Gulf of Mexico) should be highlighted more explicitly. The authors should explain why these findings are important for regional biodiversity, biogeography, and taxonomic clarification.
3. The paragraph mentions “abundant net phytoplankton material” but does not describe sampling frequency, seasonal variation, depth range, or replication. This makes it hard to assess the representativeness of the findings.
4. There is no mention of the sampling period or whether seasonal or interannual variability was considered, which could influence the species diversity observed.

Author Response

1. The manuscript should include a distinct Conclusion section summarising the main findings, including species diversity, new records, and their implications.

 

Response: A Conclusion section was added (after Discussion), pointing out the major observations, results and discussions.

 

2. The four new records reported (three for the Mexican Pacific and one for the Gulf of Mexico) should be highlighted more explicitly. The authors should explain why these findings are important for regional biodiversity, biogeography, and taxonomic clarification.

 

Response: This was considered, and a brief explanation was provided, in both Discussion and Conclusion. Table 1 was added to give a better picture of the distribution of all taxa included in this study.

 

3. The paragraph mentions “abundant net phytoplankton material” but does not describe sampling frequency, seasonal variation, depth range, or replication. This makes it hard to assess the representativeness of the findings.
4. There is no mention of the sampling period or whether seasonal or interannual variability was considered, which could influence the species diversity observed.

 

Response: These two points are complementary, and more information was added to explain the origin of samples and the sampling period.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx