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 your careful response to the comments from two reviewers. I am satisfied that your revised manuscript satisfactorily addresses all of the points raised in the initial review.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by David Roberts, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Both reviewers were complimentary and felt that your work was carefully and meticulously conducted. They each raised some issues that, when addressed will result in a manuscript that is ready for publication. I trust that you will make these corrections/clarifications and return the manuscript. I do apologize for the time it took to reach this decision but during this COVID-19 crisis, it has taken some reviewers longer than anticipated to be able to complete their reviews. I hope you understand.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Reviewers 1 & 2 declared a potential Conflict of Interest, and the Editor was aware of this when making their decision #]
See attached files. review below. MS is basically good. But requires editing.
Acceptable and proficient.
Yes.
Overview: Okanishi et al. address the species of Astrocladus present in Japan. Three are addressed, but morphological and molecular data show that there are in fact four species.
A solid, well-researched and meticulously crafted piece of work.
******I thought a key to Japanese species OR a table summarizing characters between the four Japanese species would be a distinct improvement. ********
Other comments:
*The MS displays some difficulty in summarizing results and explaining the results of their work.
One specific issue: the abstract and the introduction assumes that Astrocladus coniferus has two synonyms: A. pardalis and A. dolfleini.. and yet, WoRMS lists both of these species as “accepted”. This confused me until I read further… While this could simply be a shortcoming of the WoRMS editor, the authors cannot ignore this..and must cite the proper citation to support their argument.
English is not the primary language of the authors, and although they are clearly proficient in the taxonomic descriptions and technical sections there are places where the language regarding synonymies and designation of lectotypes is a bit difficult to follow.
Edits are made directly to the pdf.
The article has been proof read by an English speaking taxonomist and so in general is well written and professional. I have made some small alterations in the attached pdf.
The illustrations are numerous, clear and useful.
The cited literature needs a little attention, there is a mixture of abbreviated and full journal titles, some missing data, etc.
Not really relevant. The authors have accessed all the specimens they could of the genus from Japanese waters. The species are relatively rare.
I have checked the COI sequences provided and blasted them against my own reference database. I agree with the phylogeny provided in the manuscript.
I agree with the taxonomic decisions made in the manuscript. They reestablish an old species that had been previously synonymsied.
I have only two general comments and some minor editorial suggestions that are in the attached annotated pdf.
1. Some of the material examined have a voucher code starting with MO. What is the collection status of these specimens? Will they be placed in a museum (eg in the NSMT) after the study is published? If so it would be better if you put NSMT registration numbers in the manuscript.
2. I am a little confused by the distal hooklet-bearing plates that you illustrate (pl 6A, 9J, 14H). Are these really lateral arm plates with arm spines and hooklets, or are they distal hooklet bearing plates that lie on top of the lateral arm plates. Your descriptions and figure captions do not make this clear. In fact you say that the lateral arm plates are completely covered in granules/plates (eg lines 388-9). If they are completely covered, how do the arm spines stick out? This needs to be made more clear.
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.