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 the careful attention to reviewers' comments!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by David Roberts, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Your paper has now been carefully read by three reviewers. All three considered the manuscript to be a solid, well written contribution. I likewise find it to be an excellent paper with a wide breadth of analyses and data exploration; the descriptions are thorough and VERY nicely illustrated. That said, Reviewer 2 points out a number of methodological issues that will need to be addressed in a revised manuscript - criticisms if addressed mostly likely require some reanalysis of the data (albeit not overly extensive). As such I am returning the manuscript back to you with the recommendation that it requires major revisions (in all fairness it's more somewhere in between minor and major).
When you revise your paper, I would like to ask that you pay careful attention to all of the comments, both in the review narratives and in the two marked up manuscript drafts. In your cover letter please document explicitly how you addressed each of the comments provided by all three reviewers.
This manuscript was a pleasure to read; I look forward to seeing a revised copy.
I thought that the article was well-written, thoroughly researched and included all aspects of a well thought-out manuscript. It includes important taxonomic, phylogenetic and biogeographic data. I typically provide a large number of comments in my reviews but this manuscript requires only a small number of minor comments (included as comments in the pdf file attached).
The goals for this study are clear and the results based on up-to-date analytical methods. I like the paragraph on nomenclatural acts in electronic only journals.
The taxonomic, phylegenetic and biogeographic data are significant and useful to tell the evolutionary story of this genus of darkling beetle. The conclusions are well thought-out and the results will serve as very good hypotheses to test when supplementary data is available.
A well-written manuscript, looking forward to see it published.
Recommendation: Accept with major revisions
Comments:
Do you wish to remain anonymous?: Yes
Is the author aware of the background and source material to the problems set forth?: Yes
Are the conclusions justified by the evidence presented and the assumptions involved?: Yes
Are the illustrations and tables clear and understandable?: Yes
In number are they: Sufficient
This is a very interesting paper on a largely understudied biogeographic region that revises a genus and investigates its historical biogeography. It is well written and concise which is appreciated. In general, it is a very sound study and it is clear that the author is a real authority on the study organism. I only had two issues with the paper, once these and other comments are addressed it should be ready for final acceptance and publication: First, that the biogeographic analyses should not include multiple tips per-species as this violates some of the model assumptions in BioGeoBEARS. It will likely not change much when reanalyzed as all of the species are found in a single area but you will probably want your analyses to be sound. Second, I would suggest dropping the BEAST analyses or do a full investigation as to what is going on in the data to try and see if there are any parameters to be adjusted. Please see my comments below in the paper on this. Your other divergence date estimates are largely in concordance and overlapping with the geological processes of interest, so I am not sure what is gained by presenting the BEAST analyses that did not converge.
Smaller things: Consider taking pictures of the TYPE labels rather than trying to transcribe verbatim. Also consider designating a new TYPE for T. nevadus as it seems to be lost.
See specific comments in attached word doc.
see word doc for specifics
see word doc for specifics
see word doc for specifics
Some slight asymmetry or empty space in morphological and habitus figures.
no comment
Within my knowledge the applicable data are provided and conclusions sound.
Line 682: Italicize “T. kandai” and please check for consistency throughout.
Line 745: Italicize “T. arcanus” and please check for consistency throughout.
Line 1002: Italicize “T. verpus” and please check for consistency throughout.
General note on morphological and habitus figures: A scale bar in each figure or each constituent element might be of use to readers; please consider adding, if practical.
Figure 3: Improve the cohesiveness of mouthparts C-E by better blending the overall gray background with off-gray background near each disarticulated mouthpart. A portion of D is overlapping B.
Figure 4. The use of both low-contrast reds and greens is likely to present issues for colorblind readers. Please consider an alternate highlight color.
Figure 6. Habitus E appears too dark to discern features; please lighten. Consider lightening C, G, and H too as they may appear darker on other computer monitors.
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.