Two New Species of the Family Canuellidae Lang, 1944 (Copepoda: Polyarthra), from Korea, with a Key to Species of the Genus Scottolana Huys, 2009â€
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents a very interesting and important contribution regarding the faunistics and taxonomy of marine Polyarthra (Copepoda) of the Korea and World. The manuscript contain descriptions of the two new species Scottolana from family Canuellidae. Descriptions of species are detailed and clear. The drawings are excellent. Identification key for species from genus Scottolana is good and useful. The text is written on clear and readable English.
I recommend make only small corrections in this article.
Material and Methods
1. In the section should be specify how many individuals of each Scottolana species were used for molecular-genetic analysis.
Results
2. It is proposal describe in more detail the type localities for both new species. Which type of sediments was, which depth and salinity were at least.
3. On some figures of body segments and swimming legs, such as Figures 1C, B and 8B, over-represent the dotted texture. In my opinion, this texture does not provide additional information about the structure of the copepods, and can be removed. This will make the drawing more classic. But this is not strongly recommendation, but only my proposal.
4. The section 3.3. «DNA sequences in the family Canuellidae» should be added figure with cluster of similarities between analyzed individuals based on molecular data. This will make the results of this section more visual.
I recommend this article for publication in Diversity upon the minor revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.doc
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the manuscript.
1. Material and Methods; in the section should be specify how many individuals of each Scottolanaspecies were used for molecular-genetic analysis.
Response- I changed the sentence ‘All species' to 'All specimens’ in line 77. As stated in ‘Material examined’ in the Result section, six S. daecheonensis and two S. wonchoeli were used for molecular-genetic analysis, respectively.
2. Results; it is proposal describe in more detail the type localities for both new species. Which type of sediments was, which depth and salinity were at least.
Response - Brief information about type localities is shown in Table 1. Unfortunately, we do not know about salinity in the sampling site.
3. On some figures of body segments and swimming legs, such as Figures 1C, B and 8B, over-represent the dotted texture. In my opinion, this texture does not provide additional information about the structure of the copepods, and can be removed. This will make the drawing more classic. But this is not strongly recommendation, but only my proposal.
Response - The dotted texture depicted in the figures is a representation of the actual specimens' surface pattern. So I think it’s better not to modify the figures for realistic representation.
4. The section 3.3. «DNA sequences in the family Canuellidae» should be added figure with cluster of similarities between analyzed individuals based on molecular data. This will make the results of this section more visual.
Response - The goal of this research is to provide sequence data and clarify the classification of new species. To discuss the differences in sequences between and within species in the family Canuellidae, the differences in sequences are indicated as a number rather than a cluster.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very well written, well structured manuscript describing some astonishingly ornamented species of Scottolana from Korea. The illustrations are of extreme high quality, specially the complex males P6. Resusts and discussion are very sound, and the refferences are apropriately used. The authors offer valuable CO1 and 18S data and a valuable updated key for the Scottolana species. I highly recomend the manuscript to publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the manuscript. We revised the manuscript with careful consideration for what you pointed out.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper provides a detailed and well-prepared description of two new species of the copepod genus Scottolana. In addition, a key of species of this genus has been prepared, data on the distribution of species of this genus are presented, and data obtained from the analysis of two DNA molecular markers are discussed. I do not have very significant comments and I congratulate the authors on the preparation of a new high-quality manuscript.
Below are the comments I would like to draw the attention of the authors.
- Abstract
“3.214% for 18S rRNA between two new species.”
This data are not shown in the results or discussion.
- Introduction:
“…..but due to data inaccuracies and data processing problems, the paper was subsequently retracted by the authors.”
To my mind it is critical to cite the paper causing this retraction. I am curious why the authors did not cite this paper before submitting the manuscript… It will be interesting to know the answer to this question.
Mikhailov K.V., Ivanenko V.N. 2021. Low support values and lack of reproducibility of molecular phylogenetic analysis of Copepoda orders // Arthropoda Selecta. Vol.30. No.1. P.39–42, Supplement. https://doi.org/10.15298/arthsel.30.1.04
In addition, one can mention:
Mikhailov K.V., Ivanenko V.N. 2019. Low support values and lack of reproducibility of molecular phylogenetic analysis of Copepoda orders. bioRxiv 650507; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/650507
- Material and Methods
I did not find data on the length of the compared sequences for each DNA marker. Perhaps it makes sense to specify these data more clearly. If you agree, please do it.
- Discussion
In the discussion (and Abstract), I could not find any indication of which characters can be considered in each new species as synapomorphies (or derived characters). I understand how difficult it is to do this, but the assumptions of the authors are important and will help other researchers in their analysis of the data.
>Also in this study, the intraspecific distances of the 18S rRNA sequences are closed to 0%, similar to previous studies [20, 30]. Since the distances of the sequences between species or within species are different for each taxon [29], it is necessary to secure more information about the average distance for each taxon in order to identify copepods using the distance of the DNA sequence.
This part was little since and needs to be rewritten in a phylogenetic context.
Another problem is that the molecular data mentioned (i) in Abstract are only partly mentioned in Discussion and not present in Results and (ii) in Discussing are not present in Results. To my mind the DNA data and the results of their analysis need to be mentioned in the Results somehow might be with a supplement.
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the manuscript.
1. Abstract: “3.214% for 18S rRNA between two new species.” This data are not shown in the results or discussion.
Response- This value is shown in the Results section (3.3).
2. Introduction: “…..but due to data inaccuracies and data processing problems, the paper was subsequently retracted by the authors.” To my mind it is critical to cite the paper causing this retraction. I am curious why the authors did not cite this paper before submitting the manuscript… It will be interesting to know the answer to this question.
Response- Revised as suggested. Added reference paper.
3. Material and Methods: I did not find data on the length of the compared sequences for each DNA marker. Perhaps it makes sense to specify these data more clearly. If you agree, please do it.
Response- The sequence of DNA markers is shown in Tables S1 and S2.
4. Discussion; In the discussion (and Abstract), I could not find any indication of which characters can be considered in each new species as synapomorphies (or derived characters). I understand how difficult it is to do this, but the assumptions of the authors are important and will help other researchers in their analysis of the data.
Response- The goal of this research is to provide sequence data and clarify the classification of new species. Currently, sequence information for the family Canuellidae is very rare and insufficient for phylogenetic discussions. Furthermore, the results obtained with the partial sequence were very different depending on the circumstances, therefore it was not mentioned in the paper. Research on the MT complete genome is being done independently.
