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 Dr. García,
I am pleased to accept your submission for publication in PeerJ.
Kind regards,
Frederico
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear [Author’s Name],
I reviewed the captions of Figures 1–4 and found a few minor corrections needed to ensure consistency and proper English usage. Please see the suggested revisions below.
Figure 1
Only one correction is needed: replace “Holotipe” with “Holotype.”
Figure 1. Habitus of Pseudoutanacris grilla sp. nov. (lateral and dorsal views).
(A) Male Holotype MECN-FC-2309. (B) Female Allotype MECN-FC-2310 (green chromotype).
(C) Female Paratype MECN-FC-2311 (brown chromotype). Photographs by F. Campos.
Figure 2
Recommended changes:
Replace “Holotipo” with “Holotype.”
Replace “idem” with “same.”
Separate “lateralview” into “lateral view.”
Correct “wins” to “wings.”
Correct “supeior” to “superior.”
Figure 2. Anatomical characteristics of male Holotype MECN-FC-2309 and Paratype MECN-FC-2308.
(A) Head, lateral view. (B) Same, dorsal view. (C) Same, frontal view. (D) Pronotum, lateral view.
(E) Same, dorsal view. (F) Anterior and posterior wings, dorsal view of MECN-FC-2308.
(G) Terminalia, lateral view. (H) Same, superior view. Photographs by F. Campos.
Figure 3
Replace Idem with Same, correcting Phalic → Phallic, Key to terms, instead of Terms Key, and standardizing terminology.
(A) Axial view of the genital mass with its soft structures.
(B) Same, lateral view.
(C) Epiphallus, axial view.
(D) Same, anterior view.
(E) Phallic complex, lateral view.
(F) Same, dorsal view.
(G) Same, ventral view.
(H) Ramus and apical valve of penis, infero-posterior view.
Key to terms: bridge (bri), ancora (anc), oval sclerite (osc), lophus (lop), lateral plate (lpl), internal conical protuberance (icp), apodeme of cingulum (apc), zygoma (zyg), valve of cingulum (voc), apical valve of penis (avp), basal valve of penis (bvp), spermatic tubes (spt), ejaculatory sac (ejs), ramus (ram).
Photographs by F. Campos.
Figure 4
Recommended changes:
Replace “Idem” with “Same.”
Correct “Anntena” to “Antenna.”
Figure 4. Anatomical characteristics of female Allotype MECN-FC-2311.
(A) Head, lateral view. (B) Same, dorsal view. (C) Same, frontal view. (D) Pronotum, lateral view.
(E) Same, dorsal view. (F) Tegmina and hind wing. (G) External genitalia, lateral view.
(H) Same, dorsal view. (I) Antenna. (J) Tarsus of posterior leg. (K–L) External and internal side of the hind leg.
Photographs by F. Campos.
Please revise these captions accordingly before the next submission version. Let me know if you have any questions.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript “A new species of aposematic grasshopper of the Bolivian genus Pseudoutanacris (Caelifera: Gomphocerinae) from the Andean cloud forest of the Ecuadorian Amazon basin.” I appreciate your careful attention to the reviewers’ comments in the previous round. One reviewer has confirmed that all of their earlier suggestions have been fully addressed. The second reviewer has provided a very positive assessment of the revised manuscript, acknowledging the substantial improvements in clarity, figures, and methodological detail, while offering a few additional minor suggestions for refinement.
I agree with the reviewer’s evaluation and consider that the manuscript is now in excellent shape. However, I recommend that you address the remaining points before final acceptance:
English Language and Style – Implement the minor grammatical and stylistic edits suggested by the reviewer to further improve flow and clarity.
References – Add the original literature reference in which the genus
Megacheilacris was first described, as indicated in the reviewer’s comments.
Figures – For Figure 3, consider adding abbreviations and arrows to identify specific parts of the phallic complex, as this will greatly enhance reader comprehension.
Introduction and Structure – Review the suggested paragraph adjustments in the introduction and ensure the inclusion of the taxonomic classification for the new species. Also, update the section heading for the molecular results as recommended to better reflect the content.
Methods – Expand the molecular protocol description to include PCR conditions, Sanger sequencing details, and equipment used. Also, specify the methodology for all measurements reported in Table 1 that are not yet described in the Materials and Methods section.
I find these revisions to be minor in nature and focused on clarity, completeness, and accessibility of your work. Once you address them, I anticipate the manuscript will be ready for final acceptance.
Thank you again for your thorough and careful work in revising this paper, which represents a valuable contribution to the understanding of Ecuadorian Orthoptera biodiversity. I look forward to receiving your final version.
Sincerely,
Frederico Salles
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear colleagues, thank you for your hard work on this revision. The English has improved tremendously since the initial submission, which is fantastic to see. I appreciate the effort you've put into this. As a non-native speaker myself, I understand the challenges, so I took the liberty of suggesting a few small grammatical edits that could enhance the flow and clarity of your writing. I hope you find these helpful in finalizing your manuscript.
The literature references you've included are appropriate and provide the necessary context and background for your work. I have just one suggestion in this section. I recommend you consider adding the specific literature where the genus Megacheilacris was first described. I've left more detailed notes about this particular reference in the comments on the text. I believe including this would provide a more complete historical context for the genus discussed in your study.
Thank you for the excellent figures. They have improved significantly since the last draft and are now very clear and professional. I only have one suggestion for Figure 3. To further enhance its clarity, especially regarding the phallic complex, I recommend adding abbreviations and arrows to label each specific part. This would make it much easier for readers to identify the structures you are describing in the text.
Regarding the article's structure, I have a few suggestions to help enhance its clarity and flow.
In the introduction, I made a few suggestions for paragraph adjustments that I believe will help your argument flow more smoothly. I also took the liberty of adding the taxonomic classification for the new species, which provides important context early in the paper.
Finally, for the molecular results, I've proposed a new section heading. This suggestion is intended to make the title more descriptive and aligned with the content, which should help readers better understand the scope of your findings.
Finally, your work is self-contained, and your results are highly relevant to your hypotheses. This makes for a very clear and impactful paper, as all the key findings directly support the central argument you've made.
Your manuscript presents original primary research that is well within the Aims and Scope of the journal. The research question is well-defined and highly relevant to our understanding of the Ecuadorian Orthoptera fauna, making this a meaningful contribution to the field.
I'm very pleased to see the significant improvements in your methods section since the last submission. The added detail is a great step forward. However, to ensure your excellent work is fully reproducible, I have two strong recommendations for further detail:
1) Please provide a more thorough description of the molecular protocols. This should include specific details on the PCR conditions, Sanger sequencing methods, and the equipment used. This information is essential for other researchers to be able to replicate your work.
2) I noticed that Table 1 includes more body measurements than are currently specified in the Materials and Methods section. Please be sure to detail exactly how all of these additional measurements were taken to maintain consistency and clarity.
Dear colleagues,
It's excellent to see how much your work has improved in this new version. I'm now quite confident that all the specimens you analyzed are indeed of the same species.
Furthermore, you have provided a much more detailed and comprehensive description, complete with numerous images. This will greatly facilitate the recognition of your new taxon and be a significant help to future readers.
Dear colleagues,
As I've said before, I am thrilled with the improvements you've made to the manuscript. It is very encouraging to see your dedication to enhancing your work.
Based on the suggestions I've outlined in my previous comments and in the attached revised text, I have only a few minor suggestions remaining. Therefore, I am happy to recommend a decision of minor revisions.
Dear Authors, in light of the comments made by the reviewers, I've concluded that your article requires major revision to be accepted. I believe the reviewers have done an excellent job and pointed out quite objectively all the points in the manuscript that need correction so that its quality is higher and it can be accepted. Although the comments may seem extensive, they are all necessary. Please take all comments into consideration when preparing a new version.
**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.
Figures are relevant; the figure provided in the supplementary material should be implemented in the main text. Images of detailed morphological structures are of poor quality, with shadows that make the visualization difficult. No comment on other basic reports
Methods of DNA extraction, DNA amplification, and sequencing are not provided, so not ensure reproducibility. No comment on other experimental designs
Authors describe a female as a nymph, however, she is an adult, which impacts the species' semaphoront knowledge. No comment on the validity of the other findings.
My English is not native, so I cannot say how accurate the text is in English. I suggest that the editor proofread the English or send it to a proofreader.
My observations are based on MS.
I suggest that authors review the figure subtitles.
The article is original, relevant to our knowledge of the Amazonian grasshopper fauna, and the methods used are sufficient to understand it.
The article has the impact that the study of Orthoptera taxonomy requires.
The conclusions achieve the research objective.
I congratulate the authors and encourage them to continue taxonomic studies in Orthoptera.
Dear colleagues,
The manuscript contains some grammatical issues that I have addressed. Regarding the figures, I recommend merging Figures 2 and 3 into a single composite image to save journal space.
The literature cited is generally appropriate, but some taxon names' authors mentioned in the text are missing from the reference list (e.g., Hebard, 1924; Miller, 1934; Saussure, 1861; Scudder, 1875). Since you’ve included authors of other taxon names consistently, I recommend adding these missing references for completeness.
The resolution of the figures should be improved as they currently appear blurred, particularly Figures 3 and 4. For Figure 3, close-up photographs are needed as the postabdomen structures are currently difficult to discern. For Figure 4, much of the phallic complex is out of focus. Given this structure's taxonomic significance, I strongly recommend creating a focus-stacked image to ensure all critical features are clearly visible. Additionally, more photographs of the female specimen should be provided, as this individual is clearly an adult (contrary to the description in the text, which erroneously labels it as immature).
Finally, the DNA sequences appear to have been edited. If this is the case, the original unprocessed sequences must be submitted to ensure methodological transparency.
Dear colleagues,
Your manuscript presents several issues regarding zoological nomenclature and methodology that require attention:
1. Zoological Nomenclature:
Incorrect use of parentheses for taxonomic authorities:
Species names should only include parentheses if the species is no longer in its original generic combination.
Generic names should never include parentheses.
Multiple instances where genus and species names appear without italics (mandatory under the Code)
2. Methodological Concerns:
A. Morphological procedures:
No mention of acetic acid neutralization following KOH clearing of genitalia. Without this step, KOH will continue clearing indefinitely until the structure dissolves completely.
B. Molecular analysis:
The molecular methodology is inadequately described, with critical omissions:
The tissue source for DNA extraction is unspecified.
Extraction kits and PCR conditions were not reported.
No clarification on whether sequences were edited.
Sequence alignment status not mentioned (methodologically essential for establishing homology)
C. Analytical approach:
The use of Neighbor-Joining (NJ) with only five terminals (three ingroup and two outgroup) for species determination is inappropriate.
Particularly problematic, as no other Pseudoutanacris species terminals were included.
Recommended alternative approaches:
Distance-based: ABGD analysis (https://bioinfo.mnhn.fr/abi/public/abgd/)
Tree-based: Poisson Tree Processes (http://species.h-its.org/, https://mptp.h-its.org/)
For proper methodological documentation, I strongly recommend consulting:
Koroiva et al. (2020) "DNA barcoding for identification of anuran species in the central region of South America" (PeerJ, https://peerj.com/articles/10189), which provides excellent examples of molecular analysis and identification protocols.
Dear colleagues,
I fully acknowledge that the species you present is new to science, and I appreciate the importance of describing new taxa. It is particularly encouraging to see emerging researchers working with Ecuador's fascinating Orthoptera fauna. However, the manuscript contains several inconsistencies and critical methodological issues that must be addressed:
Species identity confirmation:
While the female specimen is clearly adult, current molecular methodology does not sufficiently demonstrate its conspecificity with the described species. If confirmed as conspecific, this specimen requires a more thorough description and presentation.
Methodological limitations:
The molecular analysis, as presented, lacks the robustness to support your taxonomic conclusions. Additional validation is needed to establish whether this female truly represents the same species.
Dear colleagues,
While my critiques may initially appear discouraging, my sole objective is to enhance both the scientific rigor and broader utility of your work. As taxonomists, we shoulder dual responsibilities that serve distinct yet equally vital purposes:
Scientific obligations:
To meticulously describe and classify species.
Societal contributions:
To assign taxa names and provide accessible identification tools for diverse users (taxonomists and non-specialists alike)
Your manuscript currently fulfills the scientific mandate but falls short in its societal role. Consider the perspective of a non-taxonomist attempting to identify your new species—the current presentation, with its limited and low-quality imagery, would prove unnecessarily challenging. To maximize your work's impact, I strongly recommend these enhancements:
1. Enhanced Visual Documentation:
Supplement with high-resolution photographs of key morphological features:
• Legs (inner and outer faces)
• Wings (tegmina and hind wings)
• Postabdomen (multiple angles)
• Phallic complex (with focus-stacking)
Provide detailed illustrations of the female specimen (particularly significant as the first described female for this genus)
2. Identification Tools:
Incorporate a species identification key:
• Preferred: Pictorial key (visually intuitive)
• If dichotomous:
Eliminate subjective descriptors ("large"/"small")
Avoid intertaxon comparisons ("smaller than species X")
Use objective, structure-anchored criteria ("exceeding length of hind femur")
3. Future-Proofing Your Work:
Remember that additional congeners may be discovered subsequently. The more comprehensive your documentation (morphological data, high-quality images, and clear diagnostic characters), the easier future species delimitation will become, benefiting both the scientific community and biodiversity conservation efforts.
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.