Diversity of Nearctic Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is very well written and offers an excelent overview of diversity patterns of odonates in the Neartic.

I only have to congratulate the authors for their careful depuration of the databases and all the work that is behind the ms.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for this very fine study, especially for the discussion section which is very informative and well elaborated. The study is an enormous contribution to the odonate diversity knowledge of the Nearctic Region, and I have only minor comments that I wish the authors could take into consideration.

Line 94: Please, provide the full name of the collections followed by its acronyms.

Line 103: Can you explain the curation process with more detail?

Line 113: I think you missed a reference at the end of the sentence.

Line 120: Can you expand the explanation on this decision making process?

Lines 131-133: The labels found on the text (e.g. forest obligate, lotic obligate) are a bit different from those used on the Supp. Table 1. I suggest standardizing the labels.

Author Response

Thanks for the positive review and helpful comments/edits. Here are our responses:

Line 94: Please, provide the full name of the collections followed by its acronyms.

>I have added the full name of the collections.

Line 103: Can you explain the curation process with more detail?

>I have reworded these sentences and added detail regarding the curation process.

Line 113: I think you missed a reference at the end of the sentence.

>Added Earl et al. (2021)

Line 120: Can you expand the explanation on this decision making process?

>I added some wording further clarifying the decision-making process.

Lines 131-133: The labels found on the text (e.g. forest obligate, lotic obligate) are a bit different from those used on the Supp. Table 1. I suggest standardizing the labels.

>I changed the headings in the supplementary table to match the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

The only suggestions I have for the authors to consider for revision are a few minor suggestions to improve the text:

Abstract, lines 32-34. Suggestion for rewriting the sentence: "In the Nearctic region, the southeastern U.S. has the highest number of endemic species of dragonflies and damselflies; this degree of endemism is likely due to glacial refuges providing a foundation for the evolution of a rich and unique biota."

Line 120. In the line it states "expert review (. . . ) decided . . ." It seems that a review cannot "decide." Perhaps a statement such as "expert review by . . . was used to decide . . ." would be more appropriate.

Lines 139-140. CWE and ENMs are used here first and not defined. CWE is defined later, on p. 5. Readers will want to know what these acronyms stand for the first time they run across the.

Line 310. Instead of "family" it should be "families"

 

Author Response

Thanks for the positive review and helpful comments/edits. All have been addressed as follows:

Abstract, lines 32-34. Suggestion for rewriting the sentence: "In the Nearctic region, the southeastern U.S. has the highest number of endemic species of dragonflies and damselflies; this degree of endemism is likely due to glacial refuges providing a foundation for the evolution of a rich and unique biota."

>Sentence has been rewritten as suggested.

Line 120. In the line it states "expert review (. . . ) decided . . ." It seems that a review cannot "decide." Perhaps a statement such as "expert review by . . . was used to decide . . ." would be more appropriate.

>suggestion was accepted and phrasing was changed.

Lines 139-140. CWE and ENMs are used here first and not defined. CWE is defined later, on p. 5. Readers will want to know what these acronyms stand for the first time they run across the.