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 your most recent revision. You have satisfied all reviewer comments and this manuscript is now ready for publication. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for submitting this updated version of the manuscript. One reviewer had minor comments that should be addressed before publication. I look forward to your revised manuscript
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have revised their manuscript to my satisfaction
My main concern with the previous version was the choice of a specimen as the holotype, which has been satisfactorily fixed. Other than that, I provided suggestions to improve the text that have been largely ignored, with no explanation. For instance, in the Abstract, I don't understand the use of "Despite" on L27, since a range can be divided by a deep valley regardless of whether the distribution is restricted or not; also I don't think populations can "behave as lineages". There are many other changes, like maintaining "mountains ranges" (L45), which is incorrect, but I don't have the time to go again through all this, so I leave it to the editor and authors to edit the text as they wish.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Thank you for submitting your paper to PeerJ. This paper has been reviewed by three experts in the field and all three have said that your paper is clear, well-written and well-described. One reviewer pointed out that there is an important issue that needs to be addressed before this paper can be published, which is the holotype specimen chosen. The specimen chosen is not in the best shape and because this species is in captive colonies, a fresher specimen could be used instead, or in conjunction with the specimen used here.
I look forward to reading your edited 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.
Talavera and colleagues describe a new subspecies of the Critically Endangered Montseny brook newt based on genetic, ecological and morphological differentiation. This is a straightforward paper that is easy to follow.
There is one point I would like to raise that I think the authors should acknowledge: given the tiny range, the spatial resolution of the bioclim values seems huge in comparison. By the way, it is good to see that no animal had to be sacrificed for the description.
Taxonomy is of course very much a matter of opinion, but the author's conclusion is based on a variety of data that supports their choice. I also enjoy the discussion on the subspecies concept.
Minor language issues:
Line 75: fish predators are predators of fish, not fish that are predators
Line 338: unclear what This refers to, I guess size reduction of population size but could be interpreted as beneficial alleles being lost (for which there is no evidence).
no comment
no comment
no comment
This article constitutes a great scientific work and is of primary interest in conservation biology. It perfectly completes the work already published (Talavera et al., 2024) and offers an excellent argument for considering subspecies in Calotriton arnoldi.
The paper describes a new subspecies of a Critically Endangered newt species based on new ecological data and the reanalysis of published morphometric data. The new taxon is also supported by genomic evidence. The manuscript is well-written, figures and tables are sufficient and well presented, and previous studies have been adequately referenced. I have made some edits in the manuscript suggesting small changes in the text for clarity that I hope will be useful to the authors. I can provide a Word file with the changes suggested for convenience (the website only allows uploading a PDF).
The new data and analyses are sound and adequately illustrated and discussed.
The new findings are relevant and the conclusions, including the description of a new taxon, are justified and supported by the data.
My only serious concern is the choice of the holotype, which is a very poorly preserved specimen. This is not acceptable and I urge the authors to choose another specimen, ideally in excellent preservation condition. To me this is a critical point that needs to be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication
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.