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.
The language of the manuscript has significantly improved. I believed that the results of the study by Yuan et al. would greatly contribute to the brachyuran taxonomy, especially in the Asia region.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Michael Wink, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The revised manuscript is very much improved. However, I still have some concerns that I think will aid in improving the manuscript as follows:
Line 17-18: "M. hainanensis is most related to M. distinguendus (De Haan, 1835) and M. orientalis", based on?
Line 112: Please also describe where and how the samples were coltected. and When?
Line 126: Please include, in bracket, the kit producer country of origin.
Line 135: PCR 'was'
line 160: each dataset 'was'
If possible, I would like to request the authors to kindly proofread the whole manuscript again for any minor grammatical errors.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
As commented by the reviewers, I agree that the manuscript, although it contains sufficient data that would contribute to the field of brachyuran taxonomy and species diversity, would benefit greatly from a more detailed description and elaboration, especially the abstract section. A careful review of the revised manuscript regarding the consistency and grammar of the overall language of the manuscript. On a side note, the high-quality figures provided by the authors are commendable.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Before all, the text requires much elaboration, which should be made before formal submission.
See above.
The recognition of the new species seems to be warranted by genetic and morphological evidence.
TThe MS deals with a taxonomically very complicated genus of brachyuran crabs. Its well-structured and clear written. It describes a new species, which I think is a good distinct specie. The drawings and photos are in high quality condition.
But there are some comments, which I propose to be applied before get it published
1. Abstract is very short and vague. Please provide some details of your result and conclusion. Your abstract has actually no data, just some vague citation. You can give name of your new records, amount of recorded species of the genus some phylogenetic and biogeographical information.
2. The English of the MS must be checked and improved. For instance, in the first line of Introduction "The genus Macromedaeus Ward, 1942, currently including six described species found from Indo-West Pacific"
"including" must be "includes"
"Indo-West Pacific" must be "the Indo-West Pacific"
3. There is no mention about the state of propodus dactylus articulation in M. orientalis.
4. The subterminal spine of ambulatory legs, usually, is present in the species with propodus-dactylus articulation. What is the state of this key (subterminal spine) character in other species? and what the implications might be?
5. The syntypes of M. demani are juvenile and the detailed morphology of G1 are not distinguished. In addition, one of the characteristics of M. demani is lack of anterolateral teeth and presence of anterolateral lobes–based on serene (1984). How can we be sure that the characters stated in the manuscript belong to M. demani and not from a new species? Given the characteristics of the syntype M. demani slightly differ from those of the specimen in the manuscript.
6. There is no taxonomical account on M. crassimanus.
7. The taxonomical account of M. demani is the iteration of what Serene (1984) and Guinot (1968) stated. Additionally, the authors mention that some authors like serene (1984) list M. demani as a synonym of L. subacutus. However, Serene (1984) listed M. demani a separated species.
no comment
no comment
no comment
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.