All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for sending in for resubmitting a revised version of your manuscript describing a new species of Hyloscirtus. The manuscript has been substantially improved and addresses all of my and the reviewer’s comments. Therefore I am happy to recommend acceptance of the manuscript in its present form.
Congratulations on a job well done!
Sincerely,
Tomas Hrbek
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Patricia Gandini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The auhtors present a relevant data to describe a new species of Hyloscirtus. The MS was significantly improved in methodology and results. The MS are well done and the description of the new species is clear.
Well done.
The MS presents a valuable set of data for describe a new species and improve the taxonomy of the genus.
not comments
Dear Authors,
I received two reviews of your manuscript. Both reviewers are positive, but there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed. My main concern is with some of the analyses and with diagnoses.
1. You need to have a table of diagnostic characters and their states for species of the H. bogotensis group (at this stage it is unclear if any of the character states listed in the diagnosis are truly diagnostic since it is not stated what states these characters have in other related taxa).
2. Testing for differences in group means (t-test) shows a difference but does not qualify as a diagnosis.
3. In figure 11 oscillograms and spectrograms of the calls are provided for a number of species of Hyloscirtus including two undescribed species (sp1 and sp2). The phylogeny includes one undescribed species (sp). Clarify relationships between the samples/species in the phylogenetic and call analyses.
4. In figure 12 what is Hyloscirtus sp. from El Baboso? You should have this type of figure for H. alytolylax.
5. In figure 12, I assume that Cerro Negro is the same as Guapilal Reserva Dracula. If so, use the same terminology.
6. It is unclear to me what the scale bar in figure 1 represents (this is a ML analysis, and scale seems to represent number of character changes – a MP measure).
7. Please provide a table to p distances so the readers have an idea of molecular divergence among species.
8. Figures with specimens lack scale.
9. Is the type series composed of males only? Are all comparisons being carried out with males only?
10. Morphometric data and analyses – without indication of sample sizes it is impossible to evaluate whether the statistical tests are appropriate. Also data should be transformed (residuals) to minimize the effect of size in the analyses. Finally, instead of doing pair-wise t-tests, it would be more informative to run a PCA on the new species and related taxa.
In summary, you need to focus on comparing the new species with its phylogenetically closest relatives at the minimum. This means with H. alytolylax, H. masphi and H. sp southern Ecuador.
I would not provide a diagnosis in the abstract (currently it is there written in a telegraphic style of a diagnosis, and there are also typos).
I commend you on the citizen science aspect of this study, and it is something that should be highlighted.
I do not consider these points hard to address, and I look forward to seeing a revised version of your MS in the near future.
Sincerely,
Tomas Hrbek
The manuscript is well written, providing strong results that supports the recognition of a new species of Hyloscirtus. The figures have excellent quality, but some of them lacks scales. The tables with the call parameters could be improved including available data from published articles on the Hyloscirtus bogotensis species group.
Since I am not a native English speaker, I cannot evaluate the professional English along the manuscript.
There are several issues regarding the guidelines for the authors citation along the manuscript, missing references, and other references not cited in the text. I suggest reviewing all the authors guidelines regarding this subject.
The authors achieved all the aims proposed in the manuscript, and their finding are in the Scope of the journal. The methods are sufficient and can be replicated. I only suggest that they can include appendix providing all the genetic sequences information used in the phylogenetic analysis, and to provide a methodology of the uncorrected p genetic distance method employed.
The manuscript achieve conclusive and robust results and discussion. All my comments and suggestions are in the pdf.
The manuscript brings a description of a new species of Hyloscirtus from the Ecuadorian Andes, providing strong data (morphological, acoustic, genetic, biogeography) that supports its recognition. They also provide several new information regarding a new candidate species of the H. bogotensis group. I think the call description could be improved, providing more data about the call, and a better comparison with other species within the H. bogotensis group.
I inserted all my comments and suggestions in the pdf.
Overall, the manuscript brings an excellent contribution to the taxonomy, systematics and conservation of the Hyloscirtus bogotensis group, and incorporates a great example of community involvement in conservation.
I think the manuscript could be accepted after minor revision.
The paper presents a valuable set of data for describe a new species.
There are low bootstrap support (68) between the new species and the sister species (the both species are very similar).
The phylogenetic position of the new species in the figure 1 is not clear. Phylogeny needs to be rebuilt with additional bootstraps.
Delete the localities of field work, is not the same where species occurs
the diagnosis need focus is the MAIN characters that distinguish the species. There is a lot "diagnosis" characters.
I strongly suggest to make a PCA using all morphometric data between species.
a t-student analysis are not enough to separate species
The findings are relevant to taxonomy of the group.
Phylogeny need rebuild
A PCA between species
Reduce the "diagnosis"
A clear and consistent figures
Discuss the limitation of your study (molecular markers)
Present the measurements of males and females
Present a table comparing "diagnostic characters" between species
There are other additional suggestions that are in the attachments
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.