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. Meira, I congratulate you on the acceptance of this article for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Research into the mesosomal skeletal muscle system of bees is highly relevant scientifically. Despite fundamental work, comparative analysis of mesosomal muscles in different bee lineages remains extremely limited. This manuscript fills a significant gap in our knowledge of the internal anatomy of bees, their flight patterns, and behavior.
This article is undoubtedly relevant and significant for modern zoology and evolutionary biology. The use of modern methods, such as micro-computed tomography, makes the study particularly significant, as it provides new insights into the structure and evolution of these insects.
The authors corrected my comments and answered all my questions. I recommend the manuscript for publication.
Dear Dr. Meira, I ask you to make minor corrections indicated by the reviewer before the article is accepted for publication.
The authors have implemented all the recommendations of the reviewer. The quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved. I recommend the article for publication.
The authors have implemented all the recommendations of the reviewer. The quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved. I recommend the article for publication.
The authors have implemented all the recommendations of the reviewer. The quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved. I recommend the article for publication.
Research into the mesosomal skeletal muscle system of bees is highly relevant scientifically. Despite fundamental work, comparative analysis of mesosomal muscles in different bee lineages remains extremely limited. This manuscript fills a significant gap in our knowledge of the internal anatomy of bees, their flight patterns, and behavior. This article is undoubtedly relevant and significant for modern zoology and evolutionary biology. The use of modern methods, such as micro-computed tomography, makes the study particularly significant, as it provides new insights into the structure and evolution of these insects.
However, a number of shortcomings have been identified in the manuscript that require clarification and revision.
1. Long sentences and a large number of parenthetical references make the material difficult to understand (e.g., lines 47–50, 62–70, 70–74).
2. Partial repetitions of the same ideas about the quantitative assessment and functional significance of mesosomal muscles are present throughout the text (e.g., lines 109–116). It is recommended to structure and make the Introduction section more concise.
3. The objectives of the study are stated in the text, but they could be more structured and clear. This is especially true for the sentences on lines 108–110. It would be helpful to add a few sentences emphasizing the uniqueness of the presented scientific approach and its practical significance.
4. The Introduction explains the interchangeability of "thorax" and "mesosoma," but a brief definition could be added for readers unfamiliar with insect anatomy (lines 58–61).
5. The Materials and Methods do not indicate the number of individuals of each species used in the study.
6. The manuscript should provide more information about micro-computed tomography, its features, advantages, and disadvantages.
I believe that after the manuscript has been corrected, it can be recommended for publication.
I ask you to make corrections in accordance with the reviewer's comments.
**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.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the editor for the opportunity to review this wonderful work, which harmoniously combines classical approaches and the latest research in bee morphology. Special thanks to the authors for not being afraid to refer to the "good old" works that laid the foundation for this field and evoke pleasant professional associations, adding depth and historical continuity to the research.
Comments on lines 50–53
In this excerpt, the authors state that "the prominent thorax of the bee is the main tagma responsible for movement," explaining this by the presence of two pairs of wings and three pairs of legs attached to it, and further linking this to the key role of muscles in enabling flight. The wording somewhat narrows the context: it creates the impression that the thorax is the sole centre of movement and that it is responsible for the entire motor function of the imago. In fact, the entire body of the animal is involved in the movement of the imago, and the thorax is only the part to which the walking limbs and wings (if developed) are attached. This description ignores the contribution of other parts that may be involved in locomotion (e.g., undulating contractions of the abdomen during flight or balancing, as well as movement of the head and front part of the body during walking). In other words, the statement about the uniqueness of the thorax's role in movement is overly categorical and does not reflect the participation of other parts of the body in ensuring movement.
Comments on lines 78–88
This fragment contains general information about the number, size, ecological diversity and evolutionary history of bees, presented in the form of a broad overview. However, it seems somewhat out of place in the structure of the article, as it is located within a morphological and anatomical narrative that had previously focused on skeletal and muscular structure. Such a sharp transition from a highly specialised description to a general overview of biodiversity disrupts the logical sequence of the presentation and creates the impression of an inserted element that is not directly related to the technical details presented before. The authors should consider moving it to the beginning of the Introduction section.
Comments on lines 89–97
The argument for the relevance of the study is based primarily on the assertion that "several dozen muscles remain unexplored from a comparative point of view" and therefore need to be studied. This logic does not seem convincing enough: the mere fact that there are structures that have not been studied does not in itself create a scientific problem unless it is shown that studying them can reveal new patterns or resolve existing contradictions in knowledge. Without a clear definition of the scientific question or hypothesis, this argument looks more like a statement of a gap than a justification for the need for research.
Comments on lines 98–104
The statement about "documenting the diversity of mesosomal muscles" gives the impression that there are fundamentally different sets of muscles in different groups of bees. However, within a taxonomically homogeneous group of animals such as bees, the muscle system itself is generally conservative and homologous, so it cannot be considered "diverse" in the true sense of the word. It is clear that the study concerns not so much the "diversity" of muscles as the variations in their structure, attachment points, and morphological differences within a stable basic plan. Because of this, the formulation of the task as " " seems somewhat incorrect and may be misleading regarding the expected level of variability.
Comments on lines 107–115
The subheading and text use the phrase “Taxon sampling” and further state that “representatives of 10 bee species were selected...”. There is a conceptual inaccuracy here: a taxon is an abstract unit of classification and therefore cannot be directly “selected” or “sampled”. In reality, researchers work with material biological objects — specific samples or individuals that represent certain taxa. Therefore, it would be more accurate to describe the selection of samples or individuals rather than taxa in order to avoid confusion between the concept and the material object of research.
A strong aspect of the manuscript is its comprehensive and carefully structured description of research methods. The authors provide detailed accounts of all stages, from sample preparation and staining procedures to dissection and muscle visualisation techniques, accompanied by clear explanations of anatomical landmarks and terminology. Importantly, the methodological basis is based on both classical fundamental works and the most recent contemporary research on bee morphology, which gives the study depth and ensures its consistency with the current state of knowledge in the field. This level of detail and scientific rigour ensures high reproducibility of the research and creates a reliable basis for further comparative and morphological work within Apoidea.
Results
The results of the study are very impressive due to their thoroughness and well-thought-out presentation. The authors systematically covered the entire complex of mesosomal muscles and thoroughly discussed the identified variations, taking into account their potential functional and phylogenetic significance. The illustrative material is particularly noteworthy: the photographs are of a high professional standard, clearly demonstrating morphological details and are extremely informative, which significantly enhances the scientific value and clarity of the results obtained.
Despite the undoubtedly high level of morphological analysis and thorough description of each muscle group, there is a lack of a summarising element that would allow for a quick overview of the key patterns identified by the authors. The inclusion of a summary comparative table with the main morphological differences between the studied taxa would make the results even more vivid and would allow for a more convenient comparison of the described variations within the mesosomatic musculature.
Comments on the discussion (lines 605–611)
The discussion is conducted at a high analytical level, which, in the general context, prevails and emphasises the authors' deep understanding of the functional and phylogenetic aspects of the morphological differences identified. At the same time, it remains largely descriptive, whereas a synthetic approach could complement it harmoniously. In particular, it would be appropriate to emphasise the potential correlations between individual morphological structures, which the authors only briefly mention at the end of the discussion. Obviously, the reduced methodological apparatus of this work did not allow for a full synthesis, which is quite understandable. However, indicating such a direction as a prospect for further research would seem to be a logical continuation of the in-depth morphological analysis carried out here.
no comment
no comment
no comment
This is a well written and nicely illustrated paper on bee mesosomal musculature. It provides interesting new information and presents it in a phylogenetic context, mapping the results on a tree based on previously derived phylogenetic analyses. I have suggested a number of minor corrections directly in the pdf and detailed one additional quibble below.
In lines 170-171, there is a statement: “The resulting data matrix was cladistically analyzed to display the joint phylogenetic signal present therein” which conveys the impression that the authors did a separate cladistic analysis of just the characters they scored for the study. No further information about it, e.g., software used, is given, and I don’t see the results of this analysis anywhere. The authors should clarify this.
Best wishes
Lars Vilhelmsen
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.