Review of the Spider Genus Linothele (Mygalomorphae, Dipluridae) from Ecuador—An Exceptional Case of Speciation in the Andesâ€
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript aims to revise the genus Linothele, the biggest one in the mygalomorph family Dipluridae, in Ecuador. The revision is essentially morphological but also includes distribution data. I think that making the Introduction a little more focused, ordering the (nice) figures with their legends, and clarifying the Discussion a bit, would be very enriching to the work itself. I find this section with a lot of valuable information but I find it sometimes little interconnected or lacking in references to sources (as there is valuable data provided but not all of it is derived from the results of this study). I also think that some of what is said at the end of the Introduction would be very useful to be transferred to the Discussion and, at the same time, to give the introduction more of a grounding in what is going to be studied, without anticipating results. The detection and description of new species, many of them proposed to be endemic, is extremely valuable. I am sure that future studies with behavioral and molecular approaches would be enlightening to understand the evolutionary processes there.
Line 5: 1,2*
Abstract
Line 26: “L. cavicola” in bold for a reason?
Line 30: considering that “spiders” is also in the title, what about changing by “distribution maps”?
Introduction
Line 38: “…(2.0mm) [2]. Considered…”
Line 44: “…group [11]. Although…”
Line 47: Of these, are mygalomorphs, with 99% of the mygalomorphs species are found nowhere else on the planet [2].
Line 55: “Most species of Dipluridae are found in South America (99%),”. Dipluridae has 69 species, of which all but nine are in South America. I do not understand what this percentage corresponds to.
Lines 55- 66: I suggest re-ordering these paragraphs, and unifying them, first mentioning that the family contains two subfamilies, then all about Masteriinae, and then with Dipluriinae (which is the central one of the ms and with which the text follows).
Line 63: “The subfamily, Masteriinae…”
Line 64: Opatova et al. ’s [13] ?
Line 70: “…revision that and their revision provided much needed taxonomic…”
Line 74: “As currently revised, the genus…” (add a comma)
Lines 77-78: “Most species of Linothele are known to occur in Ecuador, followed by Peru with a total of nine and five species registered respectively [1, 16].” I suggest adding this sentence to the previous paragraph.
Line 78: “…species registered, respectively.” (add a comma)
Line 78: “About 10 years ago, when we first started looking at the kleptoparasitic genus Mysmenopsis that lives in Linothele webs [17, 18], we realised…”
Line 81: “Admittedly, we are surprised by the number of new species discovered, especially for a group of rather large animals which construct large conspicuous webs.”. I would remove this sentence form here, the end of the Intro. I thinks is adecuate for the Discussion.I would also remove the data about Results given here.
Line 82: “…for a group of rather large animals which construct…” “that” instead of “which”?
Materials and Methods
Line 135: “…on an SEM stub and images were taken using a Hitachi tabletop Microscope TM4000 plus.”
Line 137: Spinneret (PLS),..” mention the meaning of the this? Posterior lateral spinnerets. Perhaps in “Abbreviations” below?
Line 143: “…as such: I:” what is the meaning of “I”?
Line 145: “…Bond [25], while any taxonomic…” (add a comma)
Results
Throughout this section, I get lost with the figures. Why doesn't the numbering correspond to the order of appearance in the text? I can't find the legends for each figure.
Line 246: “form complete description see Dupérré & Tapia 2015: 360).”? 360 means?
Line 314: “costeñita”, isn´t it?
Line 368: Suggested: “Younger adult females…”
Line 682: “Linothele javieri” without indentation?
Lines 726-728: “Figs 43–49, map 3 (white rectangle). Type material. Female holotype.” With or without space between them? I find it different throughout the text.
Line 3261: 3.1. TAXONOMIC NOTES. With this same format un the subtitles of the Discussion?
Discussion
Line 3340: Morphology. With full stop? Different from other subtitles.
Line 3346: (40%) or 35%?
Line 3355: “…are more contrasted and, striking than in adults…”
Line 3358: “…but also in size and, in the leg…”
Lines 3362-3364: “A higher ratio was found in L. cavicola where the female leg I length/body ratio is 2.2x and in the male is 2.5x. The elongated legs of L. cavicola are directly related to its underground life-style. L. cavicola is the only species considered troglophilic,…”. This is the common situation in these spiders, I suppose. Could you add any reference?
Line 3372: “Interestingly, complete scopulae were…” (add a comma)
Lines 3400-3402: “But in general, for both males and females, the combination of morphological characters (coloration, scopulae, genitalia), habitat preference, and distribution must be used together to best identify and separate Linothele species.“
Line 3417: “…at the locality, La Florida,…”
Line 3422: “…and (xÌ… 12.46), respectively.” (add a comma)
It would be definitely valuable to know about the missing males and about behavior. Considering the challenge of defining the species in this group, further angles of approach are sure to be very enriching.
Line 3438: Otonga Natural Reserve. Which region does this reserve belong to? Sympatry occurs also in the Pacific region?
Line 3457: “…some species are more aggressive than others,”
Lines 3454-3459: “…were observed next to their eggs sac between 10-15cm within the funnel, while males are often found crawling around or in smaller webs close to the females. Bites from Linothlele in human provokes mild pain and feeling of tingling, and numbness that can remain up to three days, some species are more aggressive than other, especially species living in dryer areas (e.g. L. alausi n. sp., L. uvalino n. sp., L. gaujoni and, L. victoria n. sp.). “. All this information is form other papers? Are pers obs?
Line 3461: Three species have made their way into caves…
Line 3468: “…from 250km to…”
Line 3476: (1) or 1)? (considering the following numbers).
Line 3486: “…morphotectonic regions [64]”…?
Line 3487: “…to our five biogeographical regions…”. Five or three?
Line 3503: “…species of Nemesidae were also collected…” reference?
Line 3511: “…less to a grid of 100km x 100km.”
Line 3525: “…uvalino n. sp.); eight…”(without bold)
Lines 3521-3526: You list 21 species, why would it be 27 then?
It will be really interesting to know what occurs with the diversity of the group also in the Andes from Perú! This “exceptional” case of speciation also occurring there?!
I find this section
References
Here I find different formats: journals with and without comma, full stops, italics, as well as years in bold or not.
For example:
Line 3569: Mol. Ecol.,
Line 3576: J. Arachnol.,
Lines 3658, 3666: 2013
Line 3773: “Duellman, W.E. 1999. Pattern…”. Near the pp?
Line 3793: J. S. Am. Earth Sci.,
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Author Response
Manuscript aims to revise the genus Linothele, the biggest one in the mygalomorph family Dipluridae, in Ecuador. The revision is essentially morphological but also includes distribution data. I think that making the Introduction a little more focused, ordering the (nice) figures with their legends, and clarifying the Discussion a bit, would be very enriching to the work itself. I find this section with a lot of valuable information but I find it sometimes little interconnected or lacking in references to sources (as there is valuable data provided but not all of it is derived from the results of this study). I also think that some of what is said at the end of the Introduction would be very useful to be transferred to the Discussion and, at the same time, to give the introduction more of a grounding in what is going to be studied, without anticipating results. The detection and description of new species, many of them proposed to be endemic, is extremely valuable. I am sure that future studies with behavioral and molecular approaches would be enlightening to understand the evolutionary processes there.
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks to the correction and comments.
The figures will be with their legends in the paper, it was just not possible in the review process because it was too large.
Ok, the we added some details in the introduction.
Ok, added.
Line 5: 1,2*
OK, done.
Abstract
Line 26: “L. cavicola” in bold for a reason?
OK, done.
Line 30: considering that “spiders” is also in the title, what about changing by “distribution maps”?
OK, done.
Introduction
Line 38: “…(2.0mm) [2]. Considered…”
OK, done.
Line 44: “…group [11]. Although…”
OK, done.
Line 47: Of these, are mygalomorphs, with 99% of the mygalomorphs species are found nowhere else on the planet [2].
OK, done.
Line 55: “Most species of Dipluridae are found in South America (99%),”. Dipluridae has 69 species, of which all but nine are in South America. I do not understand what this percentage corresponds to.
OK, done.
Lines 55- 66: I suggest re-ordering these paragraphs, and unifying them, first mentioning that the family contains two subfamilies, then all about Masteriinae, and then with Dipluriinae (which is the central one of the ms and with which the text follows).
OK, done.
Line 63: “The subfamily, Masteriinae…”
OK, done.
Line 64: Opatova et al. ’s [13] ?
OK, done.
Line 70: “…revision that and their revision provided much needed taxonomic…”
OK, done.
Line 74: “As currently revised, the genus…” (add a comma)
OK, done.
Lines 77-78: “Most species of Linothele are known to occur in Ecuador, followed by Peru with a total of nine and five species registered respectively [1, 16].” I suggest adding this sentence to the previous paragraph.
OK, done.
Line 78: “…species registered, respectively.” (add a comma)
OK, done.
Line 78: “About 10 years ago, when we first started looking at the kleptoparasitic genus Mysmenopsis that lives in Linothele webs [17, 18], we realised…”
OK, done.
Line 81: “Admittedly, we are surprised by the number of new species discovered, especially for a group of rather large animals which construct large conspicuous webs.”. I would remove this sentence form here, the end of the Intro. I thinks is adecuate for the Discussion.I would also remove the data about Results given here.
OK, done.
Line 82: “…for a group of rather large animals which construct…” “that” instead of “which”?
OK, done.
Materials and Methods
Line 135: “…on an SEM stub and images were taken using a Hitachi tabletop Microscope TM4000 plus.”
OK, done.
Line 137: Spinneret (PLS),..” mention the meaning of the this? Posterior lateral spinnerets. Perhaps in “Abbreviations” below?
OK, done.
Line 143: “…as such: I:” what is the meaning of “I”?
OK, corrected.
Line 145: “…Bond [25], while any taxonomic…” (add a comma)
OK, corrected.
Results
Throughout this section, I get lost with the figures. Why doesn't the numbering correspond to the order of appearance in the text? I can't find the legends for each figure.
Ok, The figures are in order of the text, but first we have to present the morphology first otherwise the reader cannot understand the information on the taxonomic plates.
The legend are at the end of the text but will be added below all the figures, so there will be no confusion.
Line 246: “form complete description see Dupérré & Tapia 2015: 360).”? 360 means?
Ok, added p. 360.
Line 314: “costeñita”, isn´t it?
No, it is not accepted by the ICZN to use accent in species names.
Line 368: Suggested: “Younger adult females…”
No they can be adult or not adult.
Line 682: “Linothele javieri” without indentation?
Yes without.
Lines 726-728: “Figs 43–49, map 3 (white rectangle). Type material. Female holotype.” With or without space between them? I find it different throughout the text.
Ok I will make it uniform and will put a space.
Line 3261: 3.1. TAXONOMIC NOTES. With this same format un the subtitles of the Discussion?
That is a sub section, thats why its a different fromat.
Discussion
Line 3340: Morphology. With full stop? Different from other subtitles.
Ok, corrected.
Line 3346: (40%) or 35%?
Ok, its 40%
Line 3355: “…are more contrasted and, striking than in adults…”
Ok, done.
Line 3358: “…but also in size and, in the leg…”
Ok, done.
Lines 3362-3364: “A higher ratio was found in L. cavicola where the female leg I length/body ratio is 2.2x and in the male is 2.5x. The elongated legs of L. cavicola are directly related to its underground life-style. L. cavicola is the only species considered troglophilic,…”. This is the common situation in these spiders, I suppose. Could you add any reference?
Ok, added.
Line 3372: “Interestingly, complete scopulae were…” (add a comma)
Ok, added.
Lines 3400-3402: “But in general, for both males and females, the combination of morphological characters (coloration, scopulae, genitalia), habitat preference, and distribution must be used together to best identify and separate Linothele species.“
Ok, corrected.
Line 3417: “…at the locality, La Florida,…”
It would be definitely valuable to know about the missing males and about behavior. Considering the challenge of defining the species in this group, further angles of approach are sure to be very enriching.
Ok, added
Yes indeed, I could not agree more, but finding male is quite difficult to find.
Line 3422: “…and (xÌ… 12.46), respectively.” (add a comma)
Ok, added
Line 3438: Otonga Natural Reserve. Which region does this reserve belong to? Sympatry occurs also in the Pacific region?
Ok added the region. We are not saying its not occuring in other region its an example.
Line 3457: “…some species are more aggressive than others,”
Ok, changed.
Lines 3454-3459: “…were observed next to their eggs sac between 10-15cm within the funnel, while males are often found crawling around or in smaller webs close to the females. Bites from Linothlele in human provokes mild pain and feeling of tingling, and numbness that can remain up to three days, some species are more aggressive than other, especially species living in dryer areas (e.g. L. alausi n. sp., L. uvalino n. sp., L. gaujoni and, L. victoria n. sp.). “. All this information is form other papers? Are pers obs?
Ok, added pers. obs.
Line 3461: Three species have made their way into caves…
Ok, corrected.
Line 3468: “…from 250km to…”
Ok, corrected.
Line 3476: (1) or 1)? (considering the following numbers).
Ok, corrected.
Line 3486: “…morphotectonic regions [64]”…?
Sorry do not understand here what is the problem.
Line 3487: “…to our five biogeographical regions…”. Five or three?
There are three ecoregions but five biogeographical regions.
Line 3503: “…species of Nemesidae were also collected…” reference?
Ok, added personal observation,
Line 3511: “…less to a grid of 100km x 100km.”
Ok, changed.
Line 3525: “…uvalino n. sp.); eight…”(without bold)
Ok, changed.
Lines 3521-3526: You list 21 species, why would it be 27 then?
It will be really interesting to know what occurs with the diversity of the group also in the Andes from Perú! This “exceptional” case of speciation also occurring there?!
Ok, changed.
Don’t know for sure, but I think Peru will also be as diverse as in Ecuado
References
Here I find different formats: journals with and without comma, full stops, italics, as well as years in bold or not.
For example:
Line 3569: Mol. Ecol.,
Line 3576: J. Arachnol.,
Lines 3658, 3666: 2013
Line 3773: “Duellman, W.E. 1999. Pattern…”. Near the pp?
Line 3793: J. S. Am. Earth Sci.,
Ok, we recheck and corrected the references, thanks
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is a significant contribution to diplurid taxonomy and is beautifully illustrated. I've carefully checked all of the new species proposed and I think all of them are valid.
In the last section of the article, when discussing a species described by Chamberlin, the authors should include the explicit term species inquirenda, so that it can be noted in the WSC when published. The use of the common name 'funnel-web' is not advised, I strongly advise instead using the contemporary name for this family - curtain-web spiders - to avoid confusion with other families which are known by the former.
Other comments:
Line 3: Why is there an en-dash here?
Line 26: L. cavicola should not be bold.
Line 28: endemics to endemic
Line 29: This synonymy is not relevant to Ecuador, so please place it in better context in abstract.
Line 30: 'funnel-webs' is not an appropriate common name for these spiders, the commonly used name is curtain-web spiders. "Funnel-web" is clasically applied to what are now the Atracidae and Macrothelidae.
Line 36: " are distributed around the world" to "distributed worldwide"
Line 37: What is this? The body length of Theraphosa blondi? The largest known specimen was not precisely 90mm, so you need to 1) clarify what species is the largest and how it is being measured and 2) state the measurements are approximate.
Line 38: Ibid. What species and do you mean body length?
Line 45: "or arachnids" to "and arachnids"
Line 47: "mygalomorphs species" to "mygalomorph species"
Lines 49-50: Even though you state South America in a sentence preceding, make clear again these counts are for taxa on the American continent only.
Line 51: Since the transfer of taxa from the polyphyletic Dipluridae of the 1980s, no true 'funnel-webs' have been in this family. 'Sheet-web' spiders is even more inaccurate, and is mostly applied to the Araneomorphae. Once again, the common name most attribured to and appropriate for Dipluridae sensu stricto in the modern day is curtain-web spiders.
Line 60: "contemporary" to "extant"
Line 75: According to the World Spider Catalog, no Linothele are currently known from Guyana.
Line 77: "Most species of Linothele are known to occur in Ecuador" to "Ecuador boasts the highest number of species of Linothele,"
Line 79: Comma after ago.
Line 81: "taught" does not read well in this sentence.
Line 86: Once again, L. sericata is not Ecuadorian, so this needs to be framed in a better context, explaining the synonym is of species from elsewhere in South America.
Line 109: "done" to "made"
Line 110: Why not produce extra maps at a higher resolution to show closely distributed localities? This is optional, but you should consider it, since maps are paginated separately from figures and will thus be easy to number and add to this work without disrupting the figure numbers.
Line 113: "ECFN acronym" to "The acronym ECFN"
Line 121: State the camera model.
Line 145: A paragraph all in order to simply say you are using the morphological species concept. This could be shortened to a single sentence, still including the citations at the end in square brackets.
Line 178: Is this diagnosis new, or are you modifying it from previous workers? If the latter, you need to cite that you're modifying a previously asserted diagnosis.
Line 178: No mention whatsoever of the male palpal bulb. Why?
Line 180: No normal mygalomorph has two spermathecae, they may have multiple receptacles and with one or more lobes (or as the authors call them 'vesicles') but the term in modern usage generally refers to the entire female genitalia structure, so there is no need to say "single spermathecae" just use "spermathecae".
Line 235: You should note you are updating the diagnosis that was given in your previous work. Cite with square brackets.
Line 246: "Form complete description" to "for complete description".
Line 585: "chevrons" to "chevron"
Lines 690-691: Make clear what these other species are, they aren't spiders.
Line 1382: "coordinate" to "coordinates"
Line 1383: "valid" to "accurate".
Line 1434: "of tubercle" to "of a tubercle"
Line 1698: You present this reference in the synonymy list but do not discuss it in the main text, however this does not mean you shouldn't cite it, after all you are making reference to data published in it. Since it is not mentioned in the main text it can be referenced after the pagination in the synonymy list as [76]. Most other references here are mentioned in the main text and would not need square brackets against them as a result, but this one should, as should the last reference which is also not mentioned in the main text but is included in the list (see below).
Line 1704: Ibid, cite as reference [77].
Line 1707: "photo" to "photographs" and provided by whom?
Line 2099: "The" to "This"
Line 2354: "The male was first described by Simon (1889: 401)." This is already evident in the synonymy list, no need for this sentence which is repeating the information.
Line 2658: Goloboff should not be in bold.
Line 2675: 1.2x? Of what? In comparison to the length of the abdomen? Please be clear.
Line 2679: Ibid
Line 3258: "keep" to "kept"
Line 3285: You should accordingly make it explicit this is a species inquirenda.
Line 3350: The pattern likely fades in all species when they become elderly, you just haven't observed it in all species. It is common for old females of many mygalomorph families which have distinct colouration to become eventually drab.
Line 3452: 'funnel-webs' to 'curtain-webs'.
Line 3529: This is not true, two other existing species can be evaluated for their range - L. longicauda and L. gaujoni.
There are some minor grammatical issues that I found, and the authors should check for others, but all are easily fixed.
Author Response
This manuscript is a significant contribution to diplurid taxonomy and is beautifully illustrated. I've carefully checked all of the new species proposed and I think all of them are valid.
In the last section of the article, when discussing a species described by Chamberlin, the authors should include the explicit term species inquirenda, so that it can be noted in the WSC when published. The use of the common name 'funnel-web' is not advised, I strongly advise instead using the contemporary name for this family - curtain-web spiders - to avoid confusion with other families which are known by the former.
Dear reviewer,
Thanks all for the corrections on the paper and the nice comments.
Other comments:
Line 3: Why is there an en-dash here?
Ok, corrected.
Line 26: L. cavicola should not be bold.
Ok, corrected.
Line 28: endemics to endemic
Ok, corrected.
Line 29: This synonymy is not relevant to Ecuador, so please place it in better context in abstract.
Ok, done.
Line 30: 'funnel-webs' is not an appropriate common name for these spiders, the commonly used name is curtain-web spiders. "Funnel-web" is clasically applied to what are now the Atracidae and Macrothelidae.
Ok, changed.
Line 36: " are distributed around the world" to "distributed worldwide"
Ok, changed.
Line 37: What is this? The body length of Theraphosa blondi? The largest known specimen was not precisely 90mm, so you need to 1) clarify what species is the largest and how it is being measured and 2) state the measurements are approximate.
Ok, changed.
Line 38: Ibid. What species and do you mean body length?
Ok, changed.
Line 45: "or arachnids" to "and arachnids"
Ok, changed.
Line 47: "mygalomorphs species" to "mygalomorph species"
Ok, changed.
Lines 49-50: Even though you state South America in a sentence preceding, make clear again these counts are for taxa on the American continent only.
Ok, done.
Line 51: Since the transfer of taxa from the polyphyletic Dipluridae of the 1980s, no true 'funnel-webs' have been in this family. 'Sheet-web' spiders is even more inaccurate, and is mostly applied to the Araneomorphae. Once again, the common name most attribured to and appropriate for Dipluridae sensu stricto in the modern day is curtain-web spiders.
Ok, changed.
Line 60: "contemporary" to "extant"
Ok, changed.
Line 75: According to the World Spider Catalog, no Linothele are currently known from Guyana.
Ok, changed
Line 77: "Most species of Linothele are known to occur in Ecuador" to "Ecuador boasts the highest number of species of Linothele,"
This is just a different formulation and we prefer the first version, not changed.
Line 79: Comma after ago.
Ok, done.
Line 81: "taught" does not read well in this sentence.
Ok, it is a mistake and should be thought.
Line 86: Once again, L. sericata is not Ecuadorian, so this needs to be framed in a better context, explaining the synonym is of species from elsewhere in South America.
Ok, changed.
Line 109: "done" to "made"
Ok, changed.
Line 110: Why not produce extra maps at a higher resolution to show closely distributed localities? This is optional, but you should consider it, since maps are paginated separately from figures and will thus be easy to number and add to this work without disrupting the figure numbers.
It is an interesting comment, but we do not believe that it is necessary to present higher resolution to show closely distributed, the idea is that the reader can see the pattern of distribution quickly between the ecoregion.
Line 113: "ECFN acronym" to "The acronym ECFN"
Ok, done.
Line 121: State the camera model.
Ok, added.
Line 145: A paragraph all in order to simply say you are using the morphological species concept. This could be shortened to a single sentence, still including the citations at the end in square brackets.
Ok, we have reduced it.
Line 178: Is this diagnosis new, or are you modifying it from previous workers? If the latter, you need to cite that you're modifying a previously asserted diagnosis.
This is our diagnosis.
Line 178: No mention whatsoever of the male palpal bulb. Why?
Ok, Because the male palpal buls is not diagnostic and is foun din other genera oft he family.
Line 180: No normal mygalomorph has two spermathecae, they may have multiple receptacles and with one or more lobes (or as the authors call them 'vesicles') but the term in modern usage generally refers to the entire female genitalia structure, so there is no need to say "single spermathecae" just use "spermathecae".
Ok, changed.
Line 235: You should note you are updating the diagnosis that was given in your previous work. Cite with square brackets.
Ok, done.
Line 246: "Form complete description" to "for complete description".
Ok, done.
Line 585: "chevrons" to "chevron"
Ok, done.
Lines 690-691: Make clear what these other species are, they aren't spiders.
Ok, done.
Line 1382: "coordinate" to "coordinates"
Ok, done.
Line 1383: "valid" to "accurate".
Ok, done.
Line 1434: "of tubercle" to "of a tubercle"
Ok, done.
Line 1698: You present this reference in the synonymy list but do not discuss it in the main text, however this does not mean you shouldn't cite it, after all you are making reference to data published in it. Since it is not mentioned in the main text it can be referenced after the pagination in the synonymy list as [76]. Most other references here are mentioned in the main text and would not need square brackets against them as a result, but this one should, as should the last reference which is also not mentioned in the main text but is included in the list (see below).
Ok, done.
Line 1704: Ibid, cite as reference [77].
Ok, done.
Line 1707: "photo" to "photographs" and provided by whom?
Ok, done.
Line 2099: "The" to "This"
Ok, done.
Line 2354: "The male was first described by Simon (1889: 401)." This is already evident in the synonymy list, no need for this sentence which is repeating the information.
Ok, done.
Line 2658: Goloboff should not be in bold.
Ok, done.
Line 2675: 1.2x? Of what? In comparison to the length of the abdomen? Please be clear.
Ok, done.
Line 2679: Ibid
Ok, done.
Line 3258: "keep" to "kept"
Ok, done.
Line 3285: You should accordingly make it explicit this is a species inquirenda.
Ok, done.
Line 3350: The pattern likely fades in all species when they become elderly, you just haven't observed it in all species. It is common for old females of many mygalomorph families which have distinct colouration to become eventually drab.
Ok, added.
Line 3452: 'funnel-webs' to 'curtain-webs'.
Ok, changed.
Line 3529: This is not true, two other existing species can be evaluated for their range - L. longicauda and L. gaujoni.
We cannot evaluate L. longicauda and L. gaujoni because L. longicauda can occur North in Colombia and L. gaujoni could occur South in Peru, but have not collected in Colombia or Peru.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Keywords: short-range endemisms?
Introduction
Line 38: … and include the largest spider species found on Earth (Theraphosa blondi approx. 90.0mm),…
Line 44: South America is one of the most biodiverse continents on earth for practically every…. I suggest removing “on earth” so as not to repeat the term in the previous paragraph.
Line 46: …known, the diversity of invertebrates diversity (insects, molluscs and arachnids)…
Line 47: Recently, the spider’s fauna of South Americathis continent was…
Line 61: Most species of Dipluridae are found in South America (99%),
I got lost with this percentage. If there are 69 species of the family Dipluridae present in South America, and 97 total species in the family (according to the WSC), how is that 99%?
Lines 54-72: I continue to find the order of these paragraphs of the text somewhat convoluted. I propose the following move:
…The family is considered to be of South American origin [13] and started to diverge in the Paleogene period at about 50 Mya [14]. Most species of Dipluridae are found in South America (99%), and only nine species occur outside the continent, all within the genus Masteria. Masteria species are found, in Australia, New Caledonia, New Guinea, Fiji, Micronesia, and the Philippines [15].
The family is divided into two subfamilies: the Diplurinae and the Masteriinae.
The subfamily, Masteriinae includes three contemporary genera Masteria L. Koch, 1873, Siremata Passanha & Brescovit, 2018 and, Striamea Raven, 1981. Opatova et al. ’s [13] redelimitation conservatively also includes Masteriinae within the Dipluridae family but predicted that it is likely to be recognized as a family, contingent on with future analysis. The subfamily Diplurinae, includs seven genera, three extinct (Clostes Menge, 1869, Cretadiplura Selden, 2005, and Dinidiplua Selden, 2005) and four contemporary extant genera (Diplura C.L. Koch, 1850, Harmonicon F. O. Pickard Cambridge, 1896, Linothele Karsch, 1879 and Trechona C. L. Koch, 1850).
Within the family…
Line 84: Most species of the genus are known to occur in Ecuador, followed by Peru with a total of nine and five species registered, respectively [1, 16].
Link the sentence to the previous paragraph.
Materials and Methods
Line 134: Specimen imaging was achieved using… (suggested: Specimen images were achieved using…)
Line 147: …M205A with Leica Application Suite X. Spinneret (posterior lateral spinnerets =PLS), and… (mention the abbreviation as you then use it below.)
Results
Authors: Ok, The figures are in order of the text, but first we have to present the morphology first otherwise the reader cannot understand the information on the taxonomic plates. The legend are at the end of the text but will be added below all the figures, so there will be no confusion.
Rev: I did not understand your first explanation but is really important that you have added the legends of all these (valuable) figures. Great!
Apart from that, I still find it odd that the figures are not numbered in order of appearance in the text. The one numbered 1 should be mentioned first in the text and so on. Below I also mention the figures I did not find throughout the text.
Line 200: Guyana… (Bahamas now?)
Line 381: Refered to: Younger females … (throughout the text) “Suggested: “Younger adult females…”
Authors: No they can be adult or not adult.
Rev: Ok! Therefore, you can know if an individual is a female when is not adult yet. Do you refer to females near to achieve adulthood? And the adult ones also?. What does "younger" mean then? In relation to what?
Line 486: I find it necessary to mention these "sub-regions" (west andes, etc) earlier in the text.
Line 696: Linothele javieri Dupérré & Tapia, new species (remove the indentation).
Line 1707: Again, inter Andean Valley is not mentioned before. Mention it beforehand if it is a region contained within the Andean.
Line 2079: (Fig. 2079 146B);
Lines 2261, 2938: Fig. 2 (capital letter). Which one?, “C”?
Line 3279: 3.2. TAXONOMIC NOTES
Line 3313: (Fig. 11) (capital letter)
And “presented an illustration of…” (I do not see an illustration here)
Discussion
Line 3363: (40%) or 35%?
Authors: Ok, its 40%
Rev: How does this percentage originate? Are there 9 males out of 26 known males? Or of the 47 species described for Ecuador? I still don't get it, that's why I was also asking before.
Lines 3366-3370: The sum gives me females of 46 species. What about the females of the remaining species? Weren't there 47, as mentioned a few lines above?
Line 3478: “…some species are more aggressive than others,” (add an “s” to other).
Line 3475: “egg sacs” between 10-15cm
Line 3490: If you choose this option, there are other parts of the text to modify and unify the format. Eg. 2000 km (with space in between)
Lines 3506-3507:
Line 3486: “…morphotectonic regions [64]”…?
Authors: Sorry do not understand here what is the problem.
Line 3487: “…to our five biogeographical regions…”. Five or three?
Autorhs: There are three ecoregions but five biogeographical regions.
Rev: I mean I mean, what are these regions, in both cases I think it should be made explicit in the text beforehand, to improve understanding.
References
Ok! I still find the abbreviated names of the journals with “.,” or only with “,”. Choose one format.
Captions
Fig 1. Line 3863: D. Linothele gaujoni (Simon, 1889).
Please add to the legend what the arrows point to. I deduce that it refers to the scopula from your citation in the text. Also in the other figures with arrows.
Fig 2. I mention above regarding this figure, I do not find in the text where A and B are cited, I deduce that where it refers to C, but it is not made explicit either.
Fig 3, 4, 5 and 6. Are mentioned in the text? I could not find them.
Fig. 7 and 11 are the same?
Fig. 8: E. Internal genitalia, dorsal view. (Mention that in this case it is an illustration), also in Fig. 16.
Fig. 9: I find C cited in the text. A and B? Why are they separated from Fig. 7? Both refer to females’ dorsal view of the same species. Isn´t it?
Fig. 218: B. Linothele troncal is 218 C?
Fig. 219 legend?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Keywords: short-range endemisms?
Authors: Ok, I changed to short-range endemics, short-range endemisms does not really work..
Line 38: … and include the largest spider species found on Earth (Theraphosa blondi approx. 90.0mm),…
Authors: Ok, changed.
Line 44: South America is one of the most biodiverse continents on earth for practically every…. I suggest removing “on earth” so as not to repeat the term in the previous paragraph.
Authors: Ok, changed.
Line 46: …known, the diversity of invertebrates diversity (insects, molluscs and arachnids)…
Authors: Ok, corrected.
Line 47: Recently, the spider’s fauna of South Americathis continent was…
Authors: Ok, changed.
Line 61: Most species of Dipluridae are found in South America (99%),
I got lost with this percentage. If there are 69 species of the family Dipluridae present in South America, and 97 total species in the family (according to the WSC), how is that 99%?
Authors: Ok, changed. Since the review publication in 2020, some more species were added.
Lines 54-72: I continue to find the order of these paragraphs of the text somewhat convoluted. I propose the following move:
…The family is considered to be of South American origin [13] and started to diverge in the Paleogene period at about 50 Mya [14]. Most species of Dipluridae are found in South America (99%), and only nine species occur outside the continent, all within the genus Masteria. Masteria species are found, in Australia, New Caledonia, New Guinea, Fiji, Micronesia, and the Philippines [15].
The family is divided into two subfamilies: the Diplurinae and the Masteriinae.
The subfamily, Masteriinae includes three contemporary genera Masteria L. Koch, 1873, Siremata Passanha & Brescovit, 2018 and, Striamea Raven, 1981. Opatova et al. ’s [13] redelimitation conservatively also includes Masteriinae within the Dipluridae family but predicted that it is likely to be recognized as a family, contingent on with future analysis. The subfamily Diplurinae, includs seven genera, three extinct (Clostes Menge, 1869, Cretadiplura Selden, 2005, and Dinidiplua Selden, 2005) and four contemporary extant genera (Diplura C.L. Koch, 1850, Harmonicon F. O. Pickard Cambridge, 1896, Linothele Karsch, 1879 and Trechona C. L. Koch, 1850).
Within the family…
Authors: Ok, all changed.
Line 84: Most species of the genus are known to occur in Ecuador, followed by Peru with a total of nine and five species registered, respectively [1, 16].
Link the sentence to the previous paragraph.
Authors: Ok, added.
Materials and Methods
Line 134: Specimen imaging was achieved using… (suggested: Specimen images were achieved using…)
Authors: Ok changed.
Line 147: …M205A with Leica Application Suite X. Spinneret (posterior lateral spinnerets =PLS), and… (mention the abbreviation as you then use it below.)
Authors: Ok, added.
Results
Authors: Ok, The figures are in order of the text, but first we have to present the morphology first otherwise the reader cannot understand the information on the taxonomic plates. The legend are at the end of the text but will be added below all the figures, so there will be no confusion.
Rev: I did not understand your first explanation but is really important that you have added the legends of all these (valuable) figures. Great!
Apart from that, I still find it odd that the figures are not numbered in order of appearance in the text. The one numbered 1 should be mentioned first in the text and so on. Below I also mention the figures I did not find throughout the text.
Authors: Ok, added. All the legends will be there. It is important that the morphological figure be preseneted first, and we have added that info in the material and method (line 255-256).
Line 200: Guyana… (Bahamas now?)
Authors: The record from Bahamas is considered doubtful, see line. 3511, the species belongs to another genus.
Line 381: Refered to: Younger females … (throughout the text) “Suggested: “Younger adult females…”
Authors: Ok, I understand what you mean, changed to “younger adult female”, in all the text.
Line 486: I find it necessary to mention these "sub-regions" (west andes, etc) earlier in the text.
Authors: This line does not have any sub-regions, so not quite sure what you mean.
In any case the region and sub region are defined in the material and methods (see below)
“three main biogeographical regions, as defined in the classification system for Ecuador's continental ecosystems [19], 1) the Pacific region, 2) the Andes region and, 3) the Amazonian region (Map 1).“
The Andes mountains chain in Ecuador are characterized by two parallel mountain ranges, the Oriental (Eastern) range and the Occidental (Western) range, separated by inter-Andean valley less than 200km wide, and above 2000m in elevation [20].
Line 696: Linothele javieri Dupérré & Tapia, new species (remove the indentation).
Authors: Ok, done.
Line 1707: Again, inter Andean Valley is not mentioned before. Mention it beforehand if it is a region contained within the Andean.
Authors: It is clearly mentioned in the material and methods, line 148-149
Line 2079: (Fig. 2079 146B);
Authors: Ok, corrected.
Lines 2261, 2938: Fig. 2 (capital letter). Which one?, “C”?
Author: no these figure refer to someone else work so should not be in capital letter.
Line 3279: 3.2. TAXONOMIC NOTES
Author: Ok, changed, thanks.
Line 3313: (Fig. 11) (capital letter)
Author: Ok, corrected.
And “presented an illustration of…” (I do not see an illustration here)
Author: Ok, corrected.
Discussion
Line 3363: (40%) or 35%?
Authors: Ok, its 40%
Rev: How does this percentage originate? Are there 9 males out of 26 known males? Or of the 47 species described for Ecuador? I still don't get it, that's why I was also asking before.
Author: Ok, it is 9 males out of eh 26 males, that we were able to observed the color pattern so 35%.
Lines 3366-3370: The sum gives me females of 46 species. What about the females of the remaining species? Weren't there 47, as mentioned a few lines above?
Author: One species was described by another author and we cannot evaluate the coloration pattern. We have added this info in the text.
Line 3478: “…some species are more aggressive than others,” (add an “s” to other).
Author: Ok, added.
Line 3475: “egg sacs” between 10-15cm
Author: Ok, corrected.
Line 3490: If you choose this option, there are other parts of the text to modify and unify the format. Eg. 2000 km (with space in between)
Author: ok all unified, without space.
Line 3487: “…to our five biogeographical regions…”. Five or three?
Autorhs: There are three ecoregions but five biogeographical regions.
Rev: I mean, what are these regions, in both cases I think it should be made explicit in the text beforehand, to improve understanding.
Author: it is explained in the material and methods.
“three main biogeographical regions, as defined in the classification system for Ecuador's continental ecosystems [19], 1) the Pacific region, 2) the Andes region and, 3) the Amazonian region (Map 1).“
The Andes mountains chain in Ecuador are characterized by two parallel mountain ranges, the Oriental (Eastern) range and the Occidental (Western) range, separated by inter-Andean valley less than 200km wide, and above 2000m in elevation [20].“
References
Ok! I still find the abbreviated names of the journals with “.,” or only with “,”. Choose one format.
Author: Ok, corrected.
Captions
Fig 1. Line 3863: D. Linothele gaujoni (Simon, 1889).
Author: Ok, corrected.
Please add to the legend what the arrows point to. I deduce that it refers to the scopula from your citation in the text. Also in the other figures with arrows.
Author: Ok, added.
Fig 2. I mention above regarding this figure, I do not find in the text where A and B are cited, I deduce that where it refers to C, but it is not made explicit either.
Author: Ok, we added a sentence in the material and method line that this figure is reference for morphological nomenclature.
Fig 3, 4, 5 and 6. Are mentioned in the text? I could not find them.
Author: Ok, added in material and methods.
Fig. 7 and 11 are the same?
Author: These figures are mentioned under:
Linothele tsachilas Dupérré & Tapia, 2015
Figs 6E, 7–14, map 2 (blue rectangle).
Fig. 8: E. Internal genitalia, dorsal view. (Mention that in this case it is an illustration), also in Fig. 16.
Author: Ok, done.
Fig. 9: I find C cited in the text. A and B? Why are they separated from Fig. 7? Both refer to females’ dorsal view of the same species. Isn´t it?
Author: Yes, but 9C is a juvenile as cited in the caption and the other images are there to show variation of female coloration and are mention in the caption of the species , line 316.
Fig. 218: B. Linothele troncal is 218 C?
Author: ok, there as a mixed, corrected.
Fig. 219 legend?
Author: ok, there as a mixed up, corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 53: known as curtain-web or, sheet-web (known as curtain-web, or sheet-web,…)
Line 59: The family is divided into two subfamilies:… (start a new paragraph)
Line 61: The subfamily Masteriinae includes three contemporary genera: Masteria L. Koch, 1873, Siremata Passanha & Brescovit, 2018 and Striamea Raven, 1981.
Line 163: “morphological charcaters” (characters)
Line 706: Figs 40–42, map 3 (red rectangle).
Type material. Female holotype (space in between (there are other cases below)
Line 3380: pattern of Linothele cornigera (Peñaherrera et al., 2023 [46]). And, I do not know if with or without comma, you have both.
Line 3421: The numbers of vesicles on the female's spermathecae are is variable in number,
Line 3344: Some species are clearly arboreal (L. quori, L. javieri n. sp., L. guallupe n. sp. and L. condor n. sp.) and were found only in curtain-web in between mosses and or also at the bases of epiphytes on the trunks…
Line 3451: …locality, La Florida, (remove the first comma)
Line 3472: …with some overlapping of population. However, another
Line 3478: …at this locality, L. yanachanka, was only collected…
Line 3479: Therefore, the two large species…
Line 3481: at the locality (via Aloag-Santo Domingo), where L. ilinizas n. sp. is found
Line 3496: one species, L. cavicola, presents…
Line 3565: …the family with 61 species now described,
Discussion
Authors: There are three ecoregions but five biogeographical regions.
Rev: In Map 1 you say: Map 1. Ecuador three principal biogeographical regions. So, biogeographical are 3 or five? And what are the ecoregions? Make explicit in materials and methods.
References
Number 77 in a different font
Captions
Information about the arrows is missing in Fig 19, 27, 40, 45, 47, 60, 63, 67, 135, 139, 142, 157, 163, 182, 185,
Fig 31, 33, 41: Illustration , internal (remove space before comma)
....................................................................................................................................
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
