Cryptic Diversity Revealed in A Revision of West Palaearctic Nomiapis and Systropha (Hymenoptera: Halictidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study on usually poorly studied genera of bees. The study is well done and I have only a few minor points to correct:

94 - using Cane's (2020) reclassification of monolecty was used in this study, too? I think it is important and should be cited and explained;

580 - G. Soika and M. Mavromoustakis were two different entomologists;

583 - Z. Pádr is correct;

822-916 - wrong formatting of references, should be corrected;

Figs. 7-14 - include scale bar please.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This is an interesting study on usually poorly studied genera of bees. The study is well done and I have only a few minor points to correct:

>> Thank you for your comments!

 

94 - using Cane's (2020) reclassification of monolecty was used in this study, too? I think it is important and should be cited and explained;

>> No, we do not follow Cane’s updated definition of monolecty. We find that Müller & Kuhlmann’s definition is closer to the historical meaning, and their use of narrow (single genus) and broad (single family) oligolecty is more useful. Given that pollen use is only a very small part of this manuscript, and analysis was conducted only on polylectic Nomiapis (not the narrowly oligolectic Systropha which would be monolectic under Cane’s redefinition), we do not think that it is appropriate to mention these conflicting definitions in this context.

 

580 - G. Soika and M. Mavromoustakis were two different entomologists;

>> Yes, what was written in the text here was directly transcribed from the label. We have added their separated names in square brackets at L584, for additional context.

 

583 - Z. Pádr is correct;

>> Corrected, thank you, the label is very small and it is difficult to distinguish between á and é

 

822-916 - wrong formatting of references, should be corrected;

>> The references have now been reformatted

 

Figs. 7-14 - include scale bar please.

>> A scale bar is included in these images

Reviewer 2 Report

Suggestions:

(1) Fig. 11D is too small and too dark, please make a larger picture as in Fig. 6 (bispinosa) and in Fig. 9A (albocincta = rufiventris). So it will be possible to compare the punctation of the three species (cfr table 3).

(2) Fig. 6 (bispinosa): the locality of the specimen should be added in the caption.

(3) The tubercles on S6 of the males are distinctive characters and should be illustrated (cfr table 3), at least for N. paulyi and N. bispinosa in Spain.

Please find attached the pdf file with my very few corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Suggestions:

 

(1) Fig. 11D is too small and too dark, please make a larger picture as in Fig. 6 (bispinosa) and in Fig. 9A (albocincta = rufiventris). So it will be possible to compare the punctation of the three species (cfr table 3).

>> Thank you for this suggestion – we have produced a new picture for Figure 11D which better illustrates this character

 

(2) Fig. 6 (bispinosa): the locality of the specimen should be added in the caption.

>> We have added the collecting locality to the figure legend.

 

(3) The tubercles on S6 of the males are distinctive characters and should be illustrated (cfr table 3), at least for N. paulyi and N. bispinosa in Spain.

>> Agreed – we have produced a new Figure 13 that illustrates this character

 

Please find attached the pdf file with my very few corrections.

>> Thank you for these text changes. They have been integrated into the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read with interest your study, and I recommend it for publication in Diversity after a minor revision. I strongly oppose the neighbor-joining analysis. It is a standard to use maximum likelihood nowadays. Although you analyze only a short cox1 fragment, it should be done better. 

The bootstrap support 73 is extremely low concerning the method. 

All comments in the enclosed file

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

I have read with interest your study, and I recommend it for publication in Diversity after a minor revision. I strongly oppose the neighbor-joining analysis. It is a standard to use maximum likelihood nowadays. Although you analyze only a short cox1 fragment, it should be done better.

 

The bootstrap support 73 is extremely low concerning the method.

 

All comments in the enclosed file

>> Thank you for your comments on the manuscript. We have integrated the text changes you detail in the pdf file.

Concerning the phylogenetic analysis, we have repeated the analysis using a maximum likelihood analysis. The topology of the produced trees was the same, so the original conclusions are maintained. The bootstrap support for the Nomiapis bispinosa s. str. clade has now increased to 91, strengthening our argument a three-taxon conclusion. Thank you for suggesting this improved analysis.