Amblyomma auricularium (Acari: Ixodidae) in Nine-Banded Armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus: A New Record for the Neotropical Region of Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study, as described by the authors, is the first of its kind for that particular species of armadillo which makes it unique. However, I have some concerns about the study design and results. I think you should blow out the study section and show the places where the armadillos were hunted within that town(s). The results presented were also inconsistent with the Table 1 figures. I also do not think the conclusion is well written. Overall, I think this manuscript is worth publishing after the corrections are made. Please refer to my review comments and edits.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Scientific names should be italicized

Response: All scientific names trough the manuscript were italicized

 

Comments 2: "nine-banded armadillo“ was added to the title

Response: the item was added to the title

 

Comments 3: seems its not 47. Refer to comments in the results section

Response: the number of ticks was checked out and corrected in the abstract and in the results section

 

Comments 4: It will be beneficial to confirm a few random specimens by molecular method

Response: At the conclusion, it is proposed to carry out molecular characterization of the specimens in a subsequent investigation

 

Comments 5: I think mentioning the common name, at least, once will be good (lone star stick)

Response: Common names were added

 

Comments 6: ... include animals of the family ...

Response: animals of the family were added

 

Comments 7: Please be specific. You mean the latter species, nine-banded armadillo?

Response: specification about the "specie" was done

 

Comments 8: For lines 45,50,58,62,67,76,77,80,118,119: some words or phrases have observations

Response: In the mentioned lines and and others that required it in the manuscript, were corrected, deleted and adapted online as suggested

 

Comments 9: To check out results paragraph and table

Response: In the "Results" paragraph and "Table" corrections/modifications were done as requested

 

Comments 10: Line 91, Nothing was said of the nymphs. Maybe using the word 'description' will be better than diagnosis.

Response: About the nymphs, their description was in the same paragraph as the description of the males, the corresponding paragraph was separated for better understanding. The word "diagnosis" was replaced by "description". 

 

 Comments 11: Discussion section. It will be interesting to note pathogen(s) transmitted by this tick and whether the armadillo is a reservoir host. Anything about the tick's life cycle?

Response: About the pathogens, information was mentioned in the "Conclusion", however, the information was adjusted in the "Discussion" section and, in relation to the life cycle, information was added

 

Comments 12:  Conclusion observations

Response: the conclusion was adjusted according to...

 

NOTE: Regarding to the image of ticks, our institution lacks tools like electron microscopy. Mexico has subregions where economic issues limit the acquisition of such sophisticated tools. We hope in the future to establish agreements or collaborations with institutions that have such tools and allow us to improve the quality of our future publications.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper reports the first occurrence of Amblyomma auricularium in the municipality of Santiago Llano Grande, Oaxaca. This species of tick is usually associated with armadillos but especially larvae can be associated with a whole array of other mammal, representing a possible issue for livestock and local sanitary.

The paper is relevant and deserves publication. However, I recommend a reorganization of its structure, as paragraphs that belong to one section are often found in another.

Please stick to the following.

Introduction: Begin by presenting the broader context, gradually narrowing down to the main focus of the study. Clearly state the research objectives and contributions in a few concise lines.

Results: Present the findings along with the methods used. Avoid including content from other sections, such as the Introduction or Discussion.

Discussion: Interpret and analyze the results in light of existing literature and known facts outlined in the Introduction. Introduce only a minimal amount of new literature or information, as this should have been covered earlier.

Conclusion: Summarize the main findings and contributions of your research.

Each section should be clearly delineated and serve its distinct purpose.

I have attached a PDF with part of the text out of place, underlined.

Minor comments:

 

Line 31-32: Please Ref., also, could it be a complex of cryptic species_ Is there any work on that?

Line 32-33: No neotype has been designated? It should be so that this should not be a problem.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: This is only clear in the abstract. It should be foreshadowed in the introduction, discussed in the discussion section, and clearly stated in the conclusion.

 

Response: Informations was checked out…

 

 

 

Comments 2: This sentence should stay together with Amblyomma auricularium introduction, after you describe the host. on line 25.

 

Response: The sentence was joined with paragrah 1, as requested

 

 

 

Comments 3: “Discussion” section

 

Response: the section was checked out by autors, analized and, in accordance we decided not to modify as “Introduction”

 

 

 

Comments 4: “Conclusion” section - This is discussion. The conclusion should simply state that you have found this parasitic interaction in an area where it had not been previously recorded, and if any, a resume of the implications of this finding discussed in the discussion.

 

Response: the Conclusion was adjusted according to…

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been sufficiently revised, and I think it is good to go at this point. I however suggest that the authors go through one more time and correct all grammatical errors. Found two just by scanning through the revised script. About the figure 2, please provide citation if it is not original.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved.