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.
Thank you for making the additional changes and addressing previous comments by the reviewers. I believe the manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for responding to the reviews. I did have a few more minor edits for line 57, 58, and 69.
I understand your comments about DNA barcoding and you do provide strong evidence in the context of morphology, phylogeny, and geographic distribution.
Can you include a few sentences in your discussion acknowledging that DNA barcoding would have added additional support, however, due to the circumstances in points 1 and 2 you make, you are unable to include DNA barcoding.
Please have a look at the reviewers and my comments on your paper. The major issue I see with your paper is the lack of DNA barcoding data. DNA barcoding nowadays is a major component of species identification and with the use of phylogenetic tree analysis normally provide strong evidence in support of species identification. This is especially true as you indicate in your paper your specimens might be the imagos of L. taprobanes or L. lithophagus. This leaves a big question mark without DNA barcoding data. If you can provide these data I am very willing to review the manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
This is a straight forward paper dealing with a new species of Languidipes from Borneo. The second author is the leading authority on this group.
The paper is well written, Pictures are of good quality. All needed references are cited.
The authors give sufficent arguments to prove the validity of their new species; the phylogenetic reconstruction confirms their hypothesis.
I think this paper casn be published with some minor corrections added in the draft.
no comment
This is the first mention of the genus Languidipes in Borneo; this finding is important to address biodiversity challenges in the future.
I made only a few suggestions on text and figure plates over typos and taxonomic code.
I made a few suggestions and comments on description that I believe will help to improve it
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.