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.
Dear authors, I am pleased to inform you that your article has been accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
After reviewing the corrected and revised manuscript, I do not find the need of any further improvement. In my opinion, the manuscript is ready for copy editing and publication.
No comment.
All valid.
No comments.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear authors, I ask you to carefully correct the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' fundamental comments and hope that the new version of this article can be published.
It is a clear, professional manuscript with all the necessary details to support the new species description. Well-written in ENglish (with some small typographical errors marked in the uploaded version).
I checked one reference to a Hungarian journal, which is probably mistakenly cited: all other references should be carefully checked by the authors again.
Figures are beautiful, phylogenetic diagrams are easily representative.
Everything looks fine.
The results are supported, and soundly valid. All necesary data have been provided. Conclusions are understandable and correct.
No additional comments.
In this article, the author describes a new species and provides partial sequences of COI and 16S. From a morphological perspective, I find no issues. It is commendable that the author has included corresponding figures in the key, which enhances clarity and intuitiveness. However, a few minor issues require attention or clarification.
no comment
no comment
a few minor issues require attention or clarification.
1、the article layout requires adjustment, as lines 41, 56, and 66 exhibit inconsistencies.
2、the author constructed a phylogenetic tree utilizing COI and partial 16S sequences; however, the sampling was insufficient, resulting in a considerable number of nodes with support rates below 50% or lacking support altogether. Is it feasible to attempt constructing a tree based on morphological characteristics?
3、a substantial portion of the article is dedicated to discussing genetic distances. Could the authors provide a summary reference value for the genetic distances both within and between Thyropygus species?
4、Lines“(2) T. peninsularis, a species formerly assigned to the T. erythropleurus group, but for which DNA sequence data and a re-interpretation of its gonopod morphology show that it actually belongs to the T. opinatus subgroup. ”，but I can not find T. erythropleurus in Figure 1。
5、To enhance intuitiveness, Figure 1 requires further refinement.
6、In Figure 5C, the caption states that T. peninsularis possesses the structure of sfe; however, I was unable to identify this structure, and its location is not indicated in the figure.
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.