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.
Thanks for your careful revision.
# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #
Please follow the suggestions made by the reviewers, so that your paper can be accepted.
This is an excellent manuscript about weevils of tribe Naupactini, written by the two leading experts in the group. It deals with the highly diverse and economically important South American genus Naupactus, focused on the species that occur in Argentina. This taxonomic contribution allows identification of the nine species groups and provides new, revised and updated information (morphological, biogeographic and on host-plants) for 37 species occurring in Argentina and neighboring countries.
The paper is well written and nicely illustrated. I only have some minor corrections and few suggestions to improve the manuscript:
Line 137. Methathoracic wing, correct to plural “wings”.
Line 171. Please check/correct the sentence where it says “…setae of medium-length hand suberect…”. It is not understandable as it is written.
Lines 240-243. I suggest using present tense here because it is understood that these are nomenclatural changes done in the present paper. Also, placing the word “therefore” (= for that reason, consequently) is not enough because “not being a Naupactini” doesn´t provide justification for being a Tanymecini. I suggest rewording in present tense and providing a justification for your decision, something like:
“…it is not a Naupactini and meets definition of genus Eurymetopellus Emden, therefore it is herein transferred to Tanymecini, genus Eurymetopellus, thus establishing the new combination Eurymetopellus cephalotes (Hustache).”
Line 483. Please check specific epithet of “N. lar (Germar)”.
Lines 845 and 847. There are extra words in the following pairs: “…bears resembles” (delete bears); “…is looks” (I would delete “is”).
no comment
no comment
This is an excellent manuscript about weevils of tribe Naupactini, written by the two leading experts in the group. It deals with the highly diverse and economically important South American genus Naupactus, focused on the species that occur in Argentina. This taxonomic contribution allows identification of the nine species groups and provides new, revised and updated information (morphological, biogeographic and on host-plants) for 37 species occurring in Argentina and neighboring countries.
The paper is well written and nicely illustrated. I only have some minor corrections and few suggestions to improve the manuscript:
Line 137. Methathoracic wing, correct to plural “wings”.
Line 171. Please check/correct the sentence where it says “…setae of medium-length hand suberect…”. It is not understandable as it is written.
Lines 240-243. I suggest using present tense here because it is understood that these are nomenclatural changes done in the present paper. Also, placing the word “therefore” (= for that reason, consequently) is not enough because “not being a Naupactini” doesn´t provide justification for being a Tanymecini. I suggest rewording in present tense and providing a justification for your decision, something like:
“…it is not a Naupactini and meets definition of genus Eurymetopellus Emden, therefore it is herein transferred to Tanymecini, genus Eurymetopellus, thus establishing the new combination Eurymetopellus cephalotes (Hustache).”
Line 483. Please check specific epithet of “N. lar (Germar)”.
Lines 845 and 847. There are extra words in the following pairs: “…bears resembles” (delete bears); “…is looks” (I would delete “is”).
The following typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected:
Line 171 – “hand” should be “and”
328 – "withouf" should be "without"
407 – "Cyrtomon-like", with a hyphen, is used elsewhere in the text but not here
There should be consistency with having spaces after numbers and before units. e.g. line 427
738 – "oftern" should be "often"
767 – Gossypium is only spelled with one 's'
835 – "differs" should be used instead of differentiates
Other items that should be addressed:
Line 95 - the specimens borrowed from Charles O'Brien should be reported as being housed at ASUCOB, for Arizona State University Charles O'Brien collection, where the collection is now, in Tempe, Arizona, USA (http://scan-bugs.org/portal/collections/misc/collprofiles.php?collid=121)
Line 169 – there is no couplet 7 in the key! change all 8’s to 7’s (lines 138, 169, 172) and all 9’s to 8’s (lines 175, 176, 179).
Lines 315/387/432/492/571/628/723 – instead of forehead, should be frons or vertex be used? if there is some reason that forehead is preferred please specify.
no comment
no comment
This was a very well done study on a large and difficult genus of weevils and will surely be a crucial reference for anyone studying naupactines. There are only very minor errors that should be addressed.
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.