Rediscovering Monogenoids (Platyhelminthes) Parasitizing Pomacentrid and Chaetodontid Fishes from Cayo Arcas Reef, Gulf of Mexico^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

The manuscript “Rediscovering monogenoids (Platyhelminthes) parasitizing pomacentrid and chaetodontid fishes from Cayo Arcas reef, Gulf of Mexico”, authors Edgar Fernando Mendoza-Franco * , Nuno Simões , Victor Manuel Vidal-Martínez , M. Leopoldina Aguirre-Macedo is well written and makes an important contribution to the knowledge of monogenoids diversity of  damselfishes (Pomacentridae) and butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae) from the Cayo Arcas reef in the Campeche Bank (Gulf of Mexico). However some corrections or suggestions are made:

General comments

All the text has different font sizes and typography, surely it is a change made by the software text used.

The figures and drawings of the diagnostic structures are presented in low digital quality and in a small size that does not allow details to be observed, for example fig. 1 B . The text says..." elongated bulbous base with distal bilateral flange" this structure is not clear in figure 1B.

 

Line 112-113: …. dorsal, ventral anchor-bar complexes?

Line 114- Type species instead of Type-and only species:… .

Lines 115-148: the whole paragraph has a different type font and size.

Line 152: in the Figure 1 B by the quality and size of draw it is impossible observed the morphology described in the text of the base of MCO.

Line 153: "Figure 1: Paraeuryhaliotrema pomacentris n. gen n. sp instead of  “Euryhaliotrema..."  should be say....

Line 333: N . manubrium n. sp. Remarks: In general, I consider that the comparison and justification of the erection of the new species should be more robust, for example comparisons of the measurements of anchors and bars and MCO between N . manubrium n sp. and N. bychowskii

Line 372. N. aliamanubrium n. sp. Remarks: In relation to the erection of this new species I consider that the description is incomplete. I do not doubt its possible specific status, but I think that more specimens should be studied in order to provide a complete description of all diagnose structures to avoid future mistakes or taxonomic doubts. I suggest that these specimens be submitted as Neohaliotrema. sp

Line 372. N. bifidum n. sp. Remarks: As in the previous comments, the capulatory complex, the vagina and internal organs could not be determined due to the few specimens examined. I consider that the description is incomplete.

Line 479 and 500: N. bychowskii. Remarks. The authors indicate that they examined a single specimen, however in the description they appear measures in ranges, for example anchors, Clarify.

Line 505. N. macracantum. Figure?

Author Response

REVIEWER 1. General comments

1. The manuscript “Rediscovering monogenoids (Platyhelminthes) parasitizing pomacentrid and chaetodontid fishes from Cayo Arcas reef, Gulf of Mexico”, authors Edgar Fernando Mendoza-Franco, Nuno Simões, Victor Manuel Vidal-Martínez, M. Leopoldina Aguirre-Macedo is well written and makes an important contribution to the knowledge of monogenoids diversity of damselfishes (Pomacentridae) and butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae) from the Cayo Arcas reef in the Campeche Bank (Gulf of Mexico). However some corrections or suggestions are made:

A: We appreciate the Referee recognizing the relevance of the presented morphological descriptions.

2. All the text has different font sizes and typography, surely it is a change made by the software text used. The figures and drawings of the diagnostic structures are presented in low digital qwuality and in a small size that does not allow details to be observed, for example fig. 1 B . The text says..." elongated bulbous base with distal bilateral flange" this structure is not clear in figure 1B.

A: This is true. All the text with different font sizes were revised and corrected. The quality (i.e., 600dpi) and sizes of all figures/drawings were also revised in order to clarify morphological structures depicted.

3. Line 112-113: …. dorsal, ventral anchor-bar complexes?

A: Yes, most dactylogyrids have a haptor composed of 2 pairs of anchors and 1 pair of bars (= complexes).

4. Line 114- Type species instead of Type-and only species:… .

A: Corrected accordingly

5. Lines 115-148: the whole paragraph has a different type font and size.

A: Revised.

6. Line 152: in the Figure 1 B by the quality and size of draw it is impossible observed the morphology described in the text of the base of MCO.

A: See item 2.

7. Line 153: "Figure 1: Paraeuryhaliotrema pomacentris n. gen n. sp.- instead of “Euryhaliotrema..." should be say...

A: Corrected.

8. Line 333: N . manubrium n. sp. Remarks: In general, I consider that the comparison and justification of the erection of the new species should be more robust, for example comparisons of the measurements of anchors and bars and MCO between N . manubrium n sp. and N. bychowskii

A: Comparisons were made as suggested in the revised version: “Additionally, it differs in the length of the ventral/dorsal anchors and bars (ventral anchors: 38–41 vs 45–50 in N. bychowskii; dorsal anchors: 41–46 vs 50–55; ventral bar: 42–54 vs 52–77; dorsal bar: 41–57 vs 52–77).”

9. Line 372. N. aliamanubrium n. sp. Remarks: In relation to the erection of this new species I consider that the description is incomplete. I do not doubt its possible specific status, but I think that more specimens should be studied in order to provide a complete description of all diagnose structures to avoid future mistakes or taxonomic doubts. I suggest that these specimens be submitted as Neohaliotrema. Sp

A: Thanks for your comment regarding not doubt its possible specific status. Due to the limited number of smaller fish specimens collected for the First Time in the Cayo Arcas reef we mainly focused on study of the morphology (instead that of Molecular issue as claimed by Reviewer 2) of their monogenoids (see also number of fish specimens in the parameters of infection section of the revised version). Evidently, few monogenoidean specimens on these fishes were found (in some cases) which precluded an “extensive” or complete description of the species, i.e., N. aliamanubrium n. sp. However, the fact, is that the currently known species of Neohaliotrema are mainly differentiated on the basis of the morphology of their haptoral structures (as those herein described) rather than that of the internal organs (i.e., gonads, prostatic reservoir, vas deferens, etc.). At this point, without disregarding the taxonomic importance of these latter structures, we are convinced that this species can be recognized in future taxonomic studies, therefore, we retained it as originally presented.

10. Line 372. N. bifidum n. sp. Remarks: As in the previous comments, the capulatory complex, the vagina and internal organs could not be determined due to the few specimens examined. I consider that the description is incomplete.

A: same comment above.

11. Line 479 and 500: N. bychowskii. Remarks. The authors indicate that they examined a single specimen, however in the description they appear measures in ranges, for example anchors, Clarify.
12. Mesures in ranges as you indicate are actually those of the original description of the species. We stated in the original version: “measurements from the original description follow those of the present study in brackets, respectively”.
13. Line 505. N. macracantum. Figure?
14. Well, actually, the original drawings depicted for this species in Zhukov (1976) clearly differentiate it from their congeneric species. So, no need to provided new figures in the present study.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Specific comments

1. Line 65: About methods, the authors do not indicate the distance traveled during the sampling.

A: We no not have this precise information. However, the GPS coordinates of the Cayo arcas reef are provided in the original version. The distance to get Cayo Arcas from the coast of Campeche can be displayed from google maps using these coordinates. So, we do not consider need to add that “distance” in the ms.

2. Number of the paratype are not indicated in Line 188, Line 235, Line 330, Line 368, Line 411, Line 463, Line 497, Line 531, Line 585, Line 668.

A: The accession numbers of types from the CNHE are now added in the revised version.

3. Line 339: the authors declared that parasite abundance was not estimated, however quantify the parasitological descriptors in this study is necessary. Also, the authors assert that some species are the most common parasites in some host compared to other hosts.

A: The sentence of “Definitions of ecological terms follow Bush et al (1997)” is now added in the Material and Methods section. Therefore, data of Prevalence and Intensity of infection is now included in the revised version.

4. Line 545: Due to the resemblance of some characteristics between monogenean species I think that molecular and phylogenetic analysis in some specimens would be a good idea to improve our knowledge in monogenean groups and this MS. Therefore, DNA or rDNA are necessary to validate the phylogenetic position of most of them. Cryptic species are common and diverse studies have been indicated that the parasite groups harbor the largest number of cryptic species. Furthermore, these monogeneans appear to have many similar morphological structures.

A: We add the following paragraph wrote to the Reviewer 1: “A: Thanks for your comment regarding not doubt its possible specific status. Due to the limited number of smaller fish specimens collected for the First Time in the Cayo Arcas reef we mainly focused on study of the morphology (instead that of Molecular issue as claimed by Reviewer 2) of their monogenoids (see also number of fish specimens in the parameters of infection section of the revised version). Evidently, few monogenoidean specimens on these fishes were found (in some cases) which precluded an “extensive” or complete description of the species, i.e., N. aliamanubrium n. sp. However, the fact, is that the currently known species of Neohaliotrema are mainly differentiated on the basis of the morphology of their haptoral structures (as those herein described) rather than that of the internal organs (i.e., gonads, prostatic reservoir, vas deferens, etc.). At this point, without disregarding the taxonomic importance of these latter structures, we are convinced that this species can be recognized in future taxonomic studies, therefore, we retained it as originally presented.”

Of course! We are very interested in the close future to carry out a molecular study on these monogenoids (now morphological identified) based on extensive fish samples.

5. Line 721: this phrase: “At this point, it is interesting to note that these monogenoids on their respective pomacentrid hosts from the Cayo Arcas suggest evolutionary links with those from the Indo-West Pacific.” Is so ambitious even though this study does not have quantitative and/or molecular descriptions that can make this comparison with Indo-West Pacific.

A: same comment above.

6. Line 752: I’m agree with this phrase, however, and I insist, this manuscript needs to quantify parasitological descriptors (prevalence, abundance, intensity) and /or some index of diversity. More complete would have been a multivariate analysis. I saw the occurrence of parasites for each host, therefore beyond descriptions and new parasite reports, I think that the manuscript would benefit from improving some details throughout the text, especially including parasitological descriptors and/or statistical analysis.

A: Prevalence and Intensity of infection data are now in the revised version.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is fullfilling the standard of explorative species description, without any further scientific ambitions.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

We thank the Referee for his (her) comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx