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.
Thank you for taking the time to revise and resubmit your manuscript. I have now read through your paper as well as your letter in response to the reviews. I think that you have successfully addressed all of the concerns raised very well, and would like to accept your manuscript for publication in PeerJ. Congratulations!
Thank you for all the hard work you have put in to this. Your paper makes a strong contribution to the literature and I look forward to seeing it published.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
This paper is an important contribution to the knowledge on Mexican salamanders. The manuscript is extremely well-written and all data presented are solid. Quality of descriptions and illustrations is outstanding. Two reviewers provided their quite positive opinions. I also carefully read the manuscript and noted several minor points, mostly dealing with manuscript consistency, formatting of the manuscript according to PeerJ rules, and some stylistic issues. All my comments are presented in the attached reviewed PDF file.
Please note that according to PeerJ regulations, the GenBank Accession Numbers and the links to raw data depository must be provided at the submission of the manuscript.
I am quite sure that the authors will easily address all the raised questions and resubmit the manuscript very soon.
No comment
No comments
No comment
Brief review of: Descriptions of five new species of the salamander genus Chiropterotriton (Caudata" Plethodontidae) from eastern Mexico and the status of three currently recognized taxa
I have carefully read this paper and think it is an extremely well-written and reasoned contribution. It makes a huge step in understanding the diversity of one of the most difficult plethodontid genera that has been a challenge to researchers or many years. These small salamanders are speciose and often morphologically conservative. The authors are well suited to tackle this problem and are among the foremost systematists of Neotropical salamanders.
Information available previously showed that a number of undescribed species were present in the mountains of eastern Mexico. Therefore, this is a welcome follow-up to previous work that demonstrated that the genus contained a number of cryptic species. This paper summarizes previously known information and adds considerable additional molecular and morphological (i.e., CT scans) data.
Most of these new species of salamanders, along with previously known species, are microendemics. This paper elucidates the composition of the genus and provides distributional data that will be useful to a wide audience, including biogeographers, evolutionary biologists, and conservationists.
A helpful overview of the history of research is given. Solutions are provided to several long-standing taxonomic problems of the group, such as the identities of Chiropterotriton orculus and C. chiropterus, by designating neotypes for each. A more complete description of C. lavae is also given
Descriptions are thorough and follow previous formats making comparison among species easier. Especially welcome are the detailed diagnoses (i.e., "Comparisons") of these new species with congeners. Redescription of previously described species and their comparison with other species is necessary in view of the current complexity of the genus. This kind of systematic review is labor-intensive and necessary understanding the diversity of this neglected and previously poorly understood group.
It might be noted that, despite the admirable effort expended by the authors in this research, they indicate that the last word on Chiropterotriton diversity has not been said, and they identify several other yet-to-be-described populations that undoubtedly will be part of subsequent papers when additional data become available.
The figures are well executed. I strongly endorse publication.
Please see attached
Please see attached
Please see attached
Please see attached
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.