Taxonomy and Distribution of the Cave-Dwelling Scorpions Troglorhopalurus (Scorpiones, Buthidae), with the Description of a New Cave-Restricted Species^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript of Carvalho et al. is a valuable contribution in a poorly studied group. It is well presented and te information is valuable and original.

I have only found minor problems that could be solved to improve the quality of the manuscript. I have included all my suggestions in the revised version of the manuscript herein attached. 

Besides that I only have some additional comments:

Regarding the description of the hemispermatophore of T. iuiu, it is well done and the figures are very clear; however, I strongly suggest to provide a couple more images, and more details. Particurlarly a detail of the lobe region in frontal view, because there is a lot of information in that area. I also suggesto to compare it with the hemispermatophores of the more related genera of Buthidae.

Regarding the description of the habitiat of T. iuiu, I consider that you should provide more detailed data about how and where you found the specimens in the cave; additionally you should explain if you have attempted to collect it outside the caves, and if so, where, and how many times.

Regarding to the  epigean populations of T. lacrau, I think that authors should take some time to better describe them, particurlarly the synanthropic populations, and better explain if all epigean records are strictly synanthropic, because of the ecological implications of it.

Overall, I consider this a very good contribution that deserves to be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I can not properly evaluate the english of the manuscript because I am not a native english speaker; however, I have found some minor mistakes, so I suggest to carefully revise it.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files. We hope that you consider the revisions appropriate.

 

Best regards,

 

Leonardo.

 

 

Reviewer 1

 

Comments 1: Line 34 – Actually, scorpions usually hide during the day in these burrows or under logs, in this case it can not be considered as their habitats.

 

Response 1: We do not fully agree that burrows are not the habitats for scorpions. A location where an organism spends most of its time must be considered its habitat. For example, female Bothriurus scorpions barely get out of its burrows, as they foraging by sit-and-wait. However, as the sentence in question was arguing about “environments”, we updated it for: “These nocturnal organisms inhabit a variety of environments, including burrows in the ground, under fallen logs or rocks, within leaf litter, beneath tree bark deserts, humid forests, and even inside caves.”

 

Comments 2: Line 43 – Immature male?

Response 2: Yes. Updated accordingly.

 

Comments 3: Line 137 – Reviewer asked to delete the sentence.

Response 3: Deleted.

 

Comments 4: Lines 150-162 - Reviewer asked to delete the paragraph.

Response 4: We disagree. A scientific study should allow readers to fully replicate the methodology. The list of linear counts or measurements is presented only once in the text, in this section. Therefore, it is not redundant and must be kept. In addition, the Reviewer 2 did not ask to delete this paragraph.

 

Comments 5: Line 187 - Replace by "more similar", you can not assume a relation between species without a phylogeny.

Response 5: Updated accordingly.

 

Comments 6: Line 192 - This is not easy to see in the photos. You should be more speciphyc and explain which carinae are developed differently.

Response 6: We agree that this is not easily seen. Centruroidinae scorpions have reduced carapace carinae, which hampers their recognition. The text was updated to emphasize more diagnostic regions of the carapace: “(1) The carapace of T. iuiu n. sp. is mostly covered by fine granules (e.g., in the area between the anterior median and the anterior lateral carinae) and vestigial carinae (e.g., anterior central submedian, posterior central submedian and posterior submedian carinae; Figs 2C-D), but coarse granules and well-marked carinae in T. translucidus (Fig. 2A) and T. lacrau (Fig. 2B).”

 

Comments 7: Line 224 - what do you mean with this?

Response 7: In some scorpions the trichobothrial pits are highlighted from the surrounding cuticle. For example, look at the Tityus metuendus photo below, and you’ll see the white dots that represent some of its trichobothrial pits. The text was updated to: “trichobothrial pits not highlighted (i.e., color strikingly different from the surrounding cuticle).”

 

 

 

Comments 8: Lines 311-317, on hemispermatophore morphology – (1) median lobe absent?; (2) are they connected or completely separated? and (3) ¿? It looks more like a hook. Additional comment in a separate file: (4) Regarding the description of the hemispermatophore of T. iuiu, it is well done and the figures are very clear; however, I strongly suggest to provide a couple more images, and more details. Particurlarly a detail of the lobe region in frontal view, because there is a lot of information in that area. I also suggesto to compare it with the hemispermatophores of the more related genera of Buthidae.

Response 8: (1) The use of ‘median lobe’ is controversial, as this name was used to refer to several different structures in previous publications (see Monod et al., DOI 10.1186/s12983-017-0231-z). Therefore, we choose to describe the hemispermatophore by calling the three lobes observed as internal, external and basal, following Moreno-González et al. (doi: 10.5252/zoosystema2024v46a10). (2) They do not connect to each other. (3) Agreed. This entire section was rewritten for the sake of clarity in the description. (4) Again, we believe that the discussion provided is enough. The comparison with other Centruroidinae cannot be done in more detail than already present in the discussion section, as the hemispermatophore of other Troglorhopalurus are unknown.

 

Comments 9: Figure 7 - The subaculear tubercle is very different in specimens C and D despite they are the same species. Is this variation usual in this species? the subaculaer tubercle in T. translucidus is clearly different from the remaining species.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing out that. We have not evaluated differences in this character. “C” is the male and “D” a paratype female. We cannot evaluate is this particular male is different from its conspecifics or if this is a dimorphic character. The observation of the difference with T. translucidus was used to update the diagnosis section as follows: “Diagnosis. Troglorhopalurus iuiu n. sp. is most similar to T. lacrau. Both species share a light-brownish coloration in adult specimens, lack remarkably elongated pedipalps and metasoma segments and have a rhomboid subaculear tubercle, distinguishing them from T. translucidus (Fig. 1A). In T. translucidus, adults have a black base coloration; elongated pedipalps and metasomal segments and spinoid subaculear tubercle (Fig. 1A).”. The description of T. iuiu’s telson was expanded to include the following sentence: “In females, the subaculear tubercle is more developed (Fig. 7D) than in the examined male (Fig. 7C).”.

 

Comments 10: Figure 8 - A photo of the internal aspect, showing the details of the lobes would be very helpful.

Response 10: We believe that providing two views is enough for the proper description of this structure. Regardless of our point of view, we emphasize that the requested image will not be provided owing to logistic reasons: the structure is in the lab of authors that are in a long-duration field expedition.

 

Comments 11: Line 372 - If possible, mention if you are referring to males, females or juveniles, since it is a useful data.

Response 11: Text was updated to provide the raw data and based only on adult specimens, as follows: “Pectinal tooth counts: male holotype 18-18 (ISLA 126474), female paratypes 17-17 (n = 2; ISLA 126476 and CHNUFPI 6886) and 19-19 (n = 1; ISLA 126473).”

 

Comments 12: Line 380 - you have only measured three specimens, I suggesto to lower the tone of this parragraph.

Response 12: We disagree that a lower tone should be used, as these are raw reports of statistic tests. The reader is advised ins Table 1-2 of the sample size and that comparisons are based solely on females. However, we added in the end of this paragraph: “These reported differences are based on a limited number of T. iuiu n. sp. females and, therefore, require a larger sample for more robust comparisons.”

 

Comments 13: Line 393 - please be more specific. specimens were collected close to the entrance of the cave? deep inside it? if so, How many meters inside it and how did you find them?

Additional comment in a separate file: Regarding the description of the habitiat of T. iuiu, I consider that you should provide more detailed data about how and where you found the specimens in the cave; additionally you should explain if you have attempted to collect it outside the caves, and if so, where, and how many times.

 

Response 13: Agreed. The text was updated to: “Specimens of T. iuiu sp. n. were collected in the aphotic zones of from five caves. The specimen from Gruta do Sepultamento cave was collected approximately 80 meters from the cave entrance, whereas the remaining specimens were found around 200 meters from the entrances of their respective caves. All specimens were collected through haphazard sampling. Similar sampling efforts conducted outside the caves did not yield any additional specimens. All caves are located in the Serra de Iuiú region, within the municipalities of Iuiú and Malhada, in southwestern Bahia, Brazil.”

 

Comments 14: Line 423 - di you do any atempt to collect this species in the surface? if so, please explain what you did. Additional comment in a separate file: Regarding to the  epigean populations of T. lacrau, I think that authors should take some time to better describe them, particurlarly the synanthropic populations, and better explain if all epigean records are strictly synanthropic, because of the ecological implications of it.

Response 14: We believe that the updates described in Response 13 is enough to answer this comment.

 

Comments 15: Lines 500-521 – same comments as for the diagnosis of T. iuiu.

Response 15: We updated the diagnosis of T. lacrau following the same pattern as for T. iuiu.

 

Comments 16: Line 576 - The absence? do you mean the absence of varioation between specimens?

Response 16: Yes, absence of variation between specimens. Updated accordingly. P.S.: There was an additional comment of the reviewer in the table, but it was incomplete and impossible to understand.

 

Comments 17: Line 758 - Please explain if all the epigean records of this species are exclusively sinanthropic.

Response 17: Agreed. The text as updated as follows: “Beyond these cave records, the species has also been documented in epigean environments. The first epigean record is represented, including by the type locality of its junior synonym Rhopalurus brejo, in Santana do Cariri, Ceará. This specimen was collected in natural environments, a mesic forested enclave surrounded by Caatinga xerophytic formations [35]. The second record is from a specimen collected in natural environments, close to its type-locality: a trail connecting caves Lapa do Bode and Gruta Escondida [11]. Additional epigean records have been newly reported from synanthropic environments in Condeúba, and Vitória da Conquista, all in Bahia. These synanthropic occurrences are likely the result of passive human-mediated introductions.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a nice taxonomic paper including the description of a new species. There are numerous illustrations that are of the highest standard. Some morphometric statistical analyses and a nice map complement the study.

I have only minor suggestions to the authors to improve the manuscript:

• few typos (see PDF attached)
• Need to indicate in the figures when a specimen is a male or a female (not always done, see PDF)
• Fig. 14 seems a bit off track (characters previously illustrated). Maybe add some information in the legend about the purpose of the figure to make it clearer to the reader: intraspecific variability?
• Maybe indicate the type locality for each species on the map. This will add useful information for the species with a large distribution area.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files. We hope that you consider the revisions appropriate.

 

Best regards,

 

Leonardo.

 

 

Reviewer 2

Comments 18: The reviewer asked in several figures to provide the information of the represented specimen was a male or female.

Response 18: Updated accordingly.

 

Comments 19: Line 493 -Why duplicate the photograph of pedipalp and metasoma segments already present in predecing figures? Maybe add an expanation in the legend. Additional question at line 494: “male or female? Are you sure it is a T. lacrau?” Additional comment in a separated file: “Fig. 14 seems a bit off track (characters previously illustrated). Maybe add some information in the legend about the purpose of the figure to make it clearer to the reader: intraspecific variability?”

Response 19: First, it is important to highlight that the photographs are not duplicated. The lateral view of the metasomal segment II of the specimen CHNUFPI 2321 was not presented in detail before (compare Figs 13D and 14E). The zoomed image (Fig. 14E) of this specimen, allows a detailed comparison of the specimen from Ituaçu (e.g., CHNUFPI 6892 in Figs 14A-D), to which particular differences in this structure is discussed in the text. These  differences raise questions on the possibility of the specimens from Ituaçu be a separate species, as the reviewer questioned in the. Therefore, for the sake of clarity in taxonomic decisions, this figure is important. We disagree that additional information in the figure legend is necessary, as this matter is discussed in the section “Variability" (lines 615 to 630).

 

Comments 20: In a separated file “Maybe indicate the type locality for each species on the map. This will add useful information for the species with a large distribution area.”

Response 20: Updated accordingly.