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.
After reviewing this revised version of your manuscript, I see that the main comments suggested by the reviewers have been included, while the suggestions not considered are justified in detail. Therefore, I am satisfied with the current version and consider it ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by John Measey, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you very much for your manuscript titled “Myrmozercon mites are highly host specific: two new species of Myrmozercon Berlese associated with sympatric Camponotus ants in southern Quintana Roo, Mexico” that you sent to PeerJ.
This study presents very valuable and relevant information because it establishes two new exclusive species mites (Myrmozercon) on two species of Camponotus ants. Both mite species are described. In addition, a new behavior for mites is also described.
As you will see below, comments from referee 1, 2, and 3, suggest a minor revision. Given this, I would like to see a revision dealing with the comments. Their comments should provide a clear idea for me to revise, hopefully improving the clarity and rigor of the presentation of your work. I will gladly accept your paper after this revision.
Reviewer 1 suggests including a map indicating where this group of mites has been previously reported in other nearby regions and with which host species they were found.
Reviewer 2 suggests makes some minor corrections to the text.
Reviewer 3 recommends additional images of the study site and microhabitat, and also some suggestions on the text.
Please note that we consider these revisions to be important and your revised manuscript will likely need to be revised again.
The article has been carefully reviewed and is in excellent condition for publication. The authors introduce two new species of mites exclusively associated with ant species. In addition to the descriptions, the article provides extensive ecological information about the groups and the specificity of the mites to their hosts.
The English is excellent and does not require any revisions.
The reference structure is well-organized, featuring a strong introduction and concrete methods.
The illustrations and photos are of perfect quality. Several annotations have been made regarding the nomenclature of setae indicated in the text but not in the figures.
This article holds significant potential as it reports the first occurrence of this group in the Neotropics. A valuable addition would be a small map indicating where this group of mites has been previously reported in other close regions and with which host species they were found.
The authors have presented excellent suggestions and hypotheses regarding the relationship between these organisms, providing numerous insights into the biology and behavior of these groups. Congratulations on these contributions.
There are many supplementary files; it might be beneficial to reduce them to one or two at most. If the journal's guidelines require multiple files, this suggestion can be disregarded.
This is a wonderful work! The descriptions of the new species are detailed. The tables and figures are excellent.
The logical structure and explanations, and the background of the study are adequate.
The study involves novelty. The findings have validity. Conclusions are well stated.
I have made some minor corrections on the text, all of which are of a technical nature.
Pérez-Lachaud et al. identify 2 species of mites and describe their interactions with ants from the genus Camponotus.
I think they have most likely found 2 new species, and they will be of interest to a range of readers. I recommend minor revisions outlined below.
Line by line comments
Abs - New species names should be mentioned here or title, or keywords, per journal policy
40 - arent species that live in/around ant colonies symbiotically by definition myrmecophiles? If so this sentence is tautological.
53- De Morales should be lower case
85-87: awkward parenthetical statements inside parenthetical statements
95-7: link to source of climate data used to match the classification
114-115: any photos of these sites available?
164-168 run on
620-622: could the source of this error be expanded in the discussion? Did previous literature pull from different geographic literature?
650: consider alternate brackets for citation inside paranthesis
660 what justifies calling this an undercount?
669: short-lived is ambiguous. Do they only dwell in the larval stage that time or is that the time until death
Original and in Scope.
The study is primarily description of new species, and has minimal experimental design. Sufficient details provided.
Many robust figures provided. I recommend additional images of the study site / microhabitat.
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.