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 authors revised the paper according to the reviewers' suggestions. In its current form, the article can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript, after revision, appears to be free of linguistic errors. It is written in clear, correct scientific language. The minor errors I noticed in the previous version have been eliminated. Moreover, there is visible evidence of significant effort invested in refining this aspect.
After revision, the manuscript's title accurately reflects its content.
The authors introduce the reader to the topics they discuss, referencing a rich list of literary sources.
The structure of the article is clear, containing all the necessary chapters arranged in the proper order.
The results are adequately documented, described, and illustrated with a rich set of figures.
All appropriate raw data are available.
The authors have improved the section dedicated to the design and implementation of their experiments. I believe that in the current version, they present well-planned and conducted research. They describe the research process in a way that allows for replication, which is crucial for me in presenting scientific results. In my opinion, such well-planned and conducted research is a source of valuable findings.
Just as in the initial review of the manuscript, I believe that the presented results may be valuable for understanding the species diversity of Korean representatives of the genus Clematis. Such data could also be significant for classifying closely related taxa with similar morphologies.
Somie minor corrections to be made:
line 128 - C heracleifolila - a dot is missing
I strongly recommend checking whether, after each initial citation of species names, the abbreviations of the authors' names for these taxa are included. This is a standard practice in taxonomic works, and I believe it should be adopted in this paper as well.
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
NA
One of the reviewers has a big objection when it comes to methodology, I would very much like to ask you to take these objections into account when improving your paper Please also develop a sufficient background of the article.
**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.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
- clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout
- the manuscript is prepared with using correct, clear and professional English. The authors give a wide background for the results they present with a rich list of cited references
- the structure of the manuscript is correct – it includes all the chapters crucial for this kind of elaboration. - the introduction give the sufficient information about the studied taxa,
- the figures, tables and other graphics are clear, readable and supply the described results properly.
- the raw data are shared.
In my opinion the manuscript presents a valuable an interesting research performed to a high standard of scientific research and fits to aims and scopes of the journal.
The hypothesis and the tools chosen for its verification are presented in the introduction.
The methods are described with sufficient details so the experiments are replicable basing on the manuscript
The more data sources we base on, the more information we have to propose the natural classification of the studied group of plants. The micromorphology of leaves gives a wide useful information allowing to study the variation within and between the taxa and I think that this kind of study should be devoleped.
All the obtained results are clearly presented - described and illustrated. The authors base theirs conclusions on the obtained results and proof them giving the results of statistical analyses.
As the study was conducted on the South Korean species of Clematis only while the whole genus is cosmopolitan, I think that the title should be verified and it should inform the readers, that the work copes with a small part of the species representing the genus restricted to a small part of the area of distribution of Clematis. I recognize the presented study as valuable but it is not complex and I think that wide range of studied species with samples taken from the whole distribution area would be appropriate for the title proposed by the authors.
Besides, I think that the Latin names of taxa should be given along with the name (or the abbreviation of the name) of the authors of the taxa when cited for the first time in the text. I suggest to consider adding the details.
Some minor mistakes can be found in the text – I’ve indicated those I found in my comments left on the PDF file.
1. Language - I am not a native english speaker, so I prefer to not judge the quality of language used in the manuscript. However, it was possible to notice that some sentences are hard to follow and could lead to misunderstanding.
2. One of the main issues in the manuscript is the lack of sufficient background. The problem is not clearly stated. Based on what I have read, I am unsure if the main problem in Clematis is species delimitation or infrageneric categories recognition. From what is presented in the introduction, I can’t tell what the work will focus on.
3. The general article structure is properly presented.
4. I consider the lack of hypothesis a central flaw in this article. The results are presented as purely descriptive data. And, despite recognizing the value of descriptive work - especially in generating data that can be used to answer complex questions in the future, I consider that the authors tried to answer something about the group's systematics, but did not correctly substantiate their questions, which reflected in the absence of hypotheses.
1. The article’s subject fits the scope of the Journal.
2. As previously explained, the research question is not well defined.
3. I do not consider myself able of judging the technical and ethical standards of the work.
4. The methods are not adequately described. The authors cite a list of species - without providing the appropriate reference. They also mention that one of the varieties on the initial list of species was elevated to species level, but they do not explain where this decision was made (they do not include a reference) nor what it was based on. The number of specimens per species was not presented - which I consider crucial if one of the questions to be answered was in relation to the characterization of the species. Collection locations and seasonality are also not presented.
As the research question was not presented coherently, and the methods have relevant flaws, I consider it impossible to judge the impact of the results on the group's systematics. Anatomical studies are extremely relevant and, in fact, can contribute to the understanding of patterns when external morphology is not easy to interpret. I believe that the contribution of the research is important, however the lack of a correct scientific alignment makes me suggest that the article be rejected in its present format.
Abstract
“the most difficult group of taxa in terms of taxonomical discrimination” - it is difficult to recognize species? or are you talking about infrageneric categories?
19 taxa - specify: species? subspecies?
“The Clematis are hypostomatic that is the stomata are only found in the adaxial surface of the leaf” - hypostomatic leaves are those where the stomata are found only in the ABAXIAL surface.
“13 leaf micro-morphological features generated at least four clusters” - why at least? include the number of clusters to be discussed.
“The results revealed resemblances in some key leaf micromorphological features among taxa belonging to the sections Tubulosae, Clematis, and Virona.” - rewrite for clarity. Are you trying to say that species from these sections are grouped according to anatomical characters?
“In the Clematis, as with other morphological characteristics, the utilization of leaf”... are you talking about the genus or the section?
Introduction
Line 55: significant variation in what? diversity? species richness? morphological variation?
Line 61: use italics in the genus name
Line 65: idem
Is the genus monophyletic? These subgenera and sections have been tested in phylogenetic studies?
I am unsure if the main problem in Clematis is species delimitation or infrageneric categories recognition. From what is presented in the introduction, I can’t tell what the work will focus on.
Methods
How many specimens for each species were analyzed?
“From the previous list of the species, C. 116 terniflora var. mandshurica has been elevated as a new species C. mandshurica while C. 117 takedana and C heracleifolila have been found misidentified and changed to C. tubulosa” - the list should be cited, and who has elevated the variety to the specific level? The literature should be properly cited.
Did the authors conduct field expeditions to collect plant material? Where? How many specimens? To all species was possible to collect specimens in sicco?
The study examines an important and taxonomically challenging genus, Clematis, which exhibits wide morphological variation, making infrageneric classification difficult. However, there are some limitations which must be addressed.
The abstract does not provide details on the specific taxa examined, making it difficult to assess the representativeness of the sampling.
Integrating current data with other morphological and molecular evidence could provide reliable evidences.
The study is limited to 19 taxa from Korea, which may not fully represent the diversity of the large Clematis genus, comprising over 300 species worldwide. So including maximum numbers of species could provide significant results.
In introduction, emphasize the longstanding challenges in resolving the infrageneric relationships within Clematis due to its extensive morphological variation and the divergence among existing classification systems.
Mention that morphological data alone has proven insufficient for resolving infrageneric ambiguities, particularly at the sectional level.
Briefly summarize the major infrageneric classification systems proposed by different authors, and highlight the lack of consensus among them.
Explain the criteria or methodology used to arrive at the final list of 16 species and 3 varieties included in the study, as there seems to be some discrepancy among the different sources cited.
Line 84-85 should be cited with some recent literature.
SEM and LM section should be cited with recent studies.
in section morphometric analyses explain how the qualitative characters (e.g., trichome abundance, epidermal cell boundary) were scored or categorized.
Cite the relevant literature or software manuals for the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and UPGMA clustering methods.
Clematis in some places is Clematis and some is Clematis be consistent. Use the standard.
Add future perspective in the conclusion
Mention that morphological data alone has proven insufficient for resolving infrageneric ambiguities, particularly at the sectional level.
Findings are well presented
Briefly summarize major findings at the end of discussion and provide future recommendation such as integration of molecular data and distribution data
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.