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.
In the revised version the authors took into consideration all comments and remarks. I recommend to accept the manuscript for publication in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xavier Pochon, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Mr. Johnson da Silva,
Your manuscript has now been evaluated. There is still a request for minor changes, before I can accept the manuscript. Please consider the comments carefully and submit the final version as soon as possible.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
The manuscript is devoted to the description of the new species of draconeamtidae found in the area of hydrotarmal vents. The nmanuscipt it written in the perfect English. Literature is cited in the almost full volume. Figures are of a very good quality.
The research is done in the frame of journal aims and scopes. The modern methods are used.
All findings are new to science and the discussion part covers actual topics in geography of free-living marine nematodes.
It was my pleasure to read such a beautiful piece of study. The manuscript is of very good quality and would be intresting to wide range of scientist - from taxonomists to chorologists and ecologists.
It is very pity that there was not possibility to make genetic analisys of described species.
Although, the scaning electron studies of neamtode morphology could provide some additional information on species morphology.
The main question conserning the Comments on the imaging approach part. I belive that the pioneer of confocal microscopy among nematologists was Aldo Zullini who proposed this method in 2006 (ZULLINI, A. & VILLA, A. (2006). Redescription of three tobrilids (Nematoda) from Altherr’s collection using confocal
microscopy. Journal of Nematode Morphology and Systematics 8, 121-132) and deserves to be cited in this manuscript.
The author describes Dracograllus miguelitus sp. nov. from hydrothermal vents of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge as a new species to science. This species is the first within the genus Dracograllus from hydrothermal vent areas and the author discusses the adaptations of this species to the harsh environment of vent fields. This study is important because of the lack of meiofaunal studies in the deep sea. Overall, this paper needs only little improvement. These improvements mainly include the standardization of figures and tables.
I think the experimental design of the study is perfect. The only addition I would recommend is the barcoding of the mitochondrial marker gene COI. Reference libraries are crucial in environmental studies when taxonomic experts are lacking, especially for such small creatures.
I honestly cannot comment on the validity of the species description, as I am not at all into nematode taxonomy. But to me the description looks well thought out and tidy. The rules of nomenclature are correctly followed and the key to the genus Dracograllus at the end looks professional.
The findings on hydrothermal vent ecology and adaptations are well interpreted and sound convincing to me.
I have a few comments on the figures, where I would suggest more consistent labelling. Also, some are either too low resolution (Figure 1 & 7) or you can't read the writing in the illustrations (Figure 1 & 7). The figures are the biggest point of criticism in my review - but this should be very easy to fix.
You can find my recommended changes in the PDF file.
Good luck with your PhD!
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.