Line 122 & 124 & 235: Misleading information. I ask the authors to rewrite the sentence. They should address how many sequences they have download from Genbank, NCBI? and their own representing sequences? (Personal cross check suggest that they have 17 individuals in table, however they have mentioned as 18 in Methodology, but the results suggest different numbers as 15) Line 285 -287: Authors are completely failed to discuss why the Chamaescrista has not formed a separate clade in their analyses. Though they only described Cassia and senna formed a clear clade? I request authors to provide more evidence on the existence of taxonomic complexities in subtribe Cassiinae and relevant research attributed by other researchers to solve the taxonomic complexities?
How this study has contributed in resolving the taxonomic complexity? I say that the authors are rather confused in their objective of the study, though they proclaim that their objective of the study was to understand evolutionary relationship! But ended up in just explaining the so called DNA barcoding gap and intra- and inter-specific genetic distance and other known facts. these results only confirmed the previous studies. I request authors to be specific about objective 2 and 3 in this study? Objective 2: Do they mean the existing taxonomic monograph on subtribe Cassiinae is not well proved morphologically, so that they want to add genomic data in it? Objective 3: What are those methods that they want to compare? Please be specific
In order to agree with your objective 2 and the result and discussion part associated with objective 2, if you provide a phylogenetic tree constructed using the morphological data of all the species comprised in subtribe Cassiinae and then compare both trees (Morphology phylogeny + ITS 1 and ITS 2 Phylogeny), then that data would actually reveal whether ITS 1 and ITS 2 of your data is supportive or not in resolving the taxonomic complexity.
I suggest authors to read all these articles (check e.g. Conceição et al. 2009 Taxon 58: 1168–1180 & Manzanilla, V. & Bruneau, A. 2012. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 65: 149–162. & The Legume Phylogeny Working Group., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2013.07.022). and also for discussions on recent classifications of Legumes see LPWG 2013 (Taxon 62 (2): 217–248). to improve 'The Quality'
