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 paper can be accepted at this stage.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please, provide minor revisions requested by the reviewers prior to the final acceptance.
This is a straight-forward description of seven new genera and 13 new species of Pteromalidae, the names of which are required for a planned treatment of the genera of Afrotropical of this family. An identification key to the genera of this family is badly needed to enable students of the group to attempt their identification in this region. To date there is no key available for this purpose and therefore I think thus contribution is very suitable for publication.
I can find very little to fault in the MS. It is clearly and concisely written with a detailed description of the methods used. To my mind the literature cited is sufficient, although one citation is missing from the list of references at the end (I have marked this in the text).
The MS is original and the work has been done to a high standard. Diagnostic characters are provided in all cases. The illustrations are numerous and in most cases are excellent. Those that are not excellent are made from older, museum specimens and often are quite dirty and thus acceptable.
The authors proved detailed comparsions with similar or related genera that occur in any part of the world.
I have made some comments on the MS which the authors should consider. Some are best defined as “nit-picky” (e.g. the inconsistent use of singular and plural for some body parts), but I think would improve the MS if they could be incorporated if at all possible. There is also some questions with regards to the depositories of some of the specimens (marked on the MS) and there are also one or two spelling errors and inconsistencies in the English used (marked on the MS).
This research provides a very good addition to the African fauna of this group of insects that needs many studies in that region.
Therefore, the additions provided are very good.
The identfication of the genera and species was comprehensive and well, and an excellent comparison was made with all related taxa, and therefore the taxonomic definitions are correct.
Perfect
It relied on a good number of specimens, and they were well examined
The photos are very clear and well taken, clearly showing the important taxonomic characters
Very good
Thank you very much
no comment
no comment
no comment
The manuscript entitled "New genera of Afrotropical Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera: Cerocephalidae, Epichrysomallidae, Pirenidae and Pteromalidae) " is very well written with minimum inaccuracies and coupled with many very useful and high-quality images of all taxa. When more than one species are described, authors add also provide key to the species. Every new genus is properly discussed in terms of potential morphological relationships with other, similar, in the past described, taxa from different parts of the world.
After a few minor changes suggested by me in the attached pdf version of the manuscript, the manuscript will be ready to accept for publication in PeerJ.
With best regards,
Petr Janšta
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.