Restoration of the Genus Paraunisaccoides Martin, 1973 (Digenea: Haploporidae) and Description of P. elegans n. sp. and Unisaccus halongi n. sp. from Mugilid Fish in Vietnam
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work describes 2 new species of trematodes obtained from Mugilids and restores the status of a genus that had been synonymized with Skrjabinolecithum. This work is of interest since it uses morphological and molecular descriptions to elucidate the described species' taxonomic position.
Some comments:
1) Although English is not my native language, I find phrases (marked in green) in the text that I could not understand or were strange (to my English). Maybe they could be rewritten.
2) In my opinion, I think it is necessary to add the molecular results that are put in the discussion in the results section. I also consider that a table of p-distances is required to help the reading of the discussion (some data are in the discussion but it is cumbersome to read).
3) I also consider that all the figures should be bigger. In particular, the worm’s ones, because the relationship between the pharynx and the ventral sucker cannot be well appreciated, nor is the cecum from the uterus.
4) There are also some minimal comments placed on the sticky notes.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
1) Although English is not my native language, I find phrases (marked in green) in the text that I could not understand or were strange (to my English). Maybe they could be rewritten. Corrected.
2) In my opinion, I think it is necessary to add the molecular results that are put in the discussion in the results section. I also consider that a table of p-distances is required to help the reading of the discussion (some data are in the discussion but it is cumbersome to read). Thank you for this comment. However, we have to clarify this part. Base molecular results as sequence length and intraspecific variation on new species presented in respective sections "Molecular data". We do not provide detailed genetic differentiation parameters here to omit repeating of this information in the "Discussion" section. Presenting of genetic differentiation in tables is redundant for this paper, because of providing a range of p-distance values in the text is enough for estimation of molecular differentiation of new taxa from known ones.
3) I also consider that all the figures should be bigger. In particular, the worm’s ones, because the relationship between the pharynx and the ventral sucker cannot be well appreciated, nor is the cecum from the uterus. Thank you for this comment. We hope that we understand it correctly and we will answer it. Enlargement or reduction of figure size can be performed by editorial office, if Editor-in-Chief will agree with these changes. However, in our view there is no sense for change of figure size. Location of the pharynx relative to ventral sucker cannot be imaged otherwise in dorso - ventral view of worm. For understanding of relative arrangement of pharynx relative to ventral sucker we provide lateral view of worm. Well-developed vitellaria don’t allow observing uterus loops; by this reason we do not draw it. We were able to detect uterus area – a place of eggs location. Sacciform intestine locates in the same area and adjoined to pharynx; it can be seen in the figure.
4) There are also some minimal comments placed on the sticky notes. Corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript diversity_1826574 describes two new species of Haploporidae in Vietnamese fish fauna. The paper is well conducted and the authors have considered the species now known to define a phylogenetic analysis that defines the family and its species, including the two new descriptions.
The introduction is a bit sparse and should be fed with some data on parasites and host species. In the materials and methods in the first sub-chapter it is necessary to insert how many fish specimens have been analyzed and the different species, the number of parasites found, with prevalence and intensity data and to understand how those already identified from those of new classification (which classification key was used). It is also necessary to insert how the preliminary morphological examination is conducted.
In the second sub-chapter, the citation in line 68 must be formatted as required by the magazine (insert number 14). In the results, the description of the two species must be standardized by inserting the same wording. Furthermore, in my opinion, figure 1 must be broken down into 2 figures to be included in the text in the descriptions of the relative species. Finally, in the discussion on lines 208-210 remove the parentheses after the species.
The manuscript is therefore of excellent workmanship but for what has been said above, it needs further contributions.
Author Response
1) The introduction is a bit sparse and should be fed with some data on parasites and host species. Slightly corrected. There are many complex studies on species diversity of Haploporidae; for this reason there is no sense to discribe haploporid trematodes and their hosts here. We provide exhaustive number of references in the "Introduction" section. One can familiarize this group of parasites and their hosts througg these articles.
2) In the materials and methods in the first sub-chapter it is necessary to insert how many fish specimens have been analyzed and the different species, the number of parasites found, with prevalence and intensity data and to understand how those already identified from those of new classification (which classification key was used). This information provided in the "Results" section in taxonomic summary for each species. Moreover, the aims of this study do not included investigation of intensity and extensivity of invasion for namely these two trematode species. Overall we cutted more than 100 specimens of mullets, which belong to at least three species. In our view it is spare information for the present study.
3) It is also necessary to insert how the preliminary morphological examination is conducted. Corrected.
4) In the second sub-chapter, the citation in line 68 must be formatted as required by the magazine (insert number 14). Corrected.
5) In the results, the description of the two species must be standardized by inserting the same wording. We cannot use the same wording because two species differ from each other morphologically. All names of organs and their characteristics were standardized as it possible.
6) Furthermore, in my opinion, figure 1 must be broken down into 2 figures to be included in the text in the descriptions of the relative species. All worms were placed into one figure to simplify morphological comparison of two species. Size of whole worms and organs andalso organr arrangement seen well in the figure and can be easily compared.
7) Finally, in the discussion on lines 208-210 remove the parentheses after the species. Corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the manuscript did not accept all the suggestions of the referees. Given that no comment was a real prescription and the goodness of the manuscript was established, the suggestions provided were given to try to improve the usability of the paper for reading.
Therefore, even if some requests have not been accepted, these do not affect the quality of the manuscript, but in the current draft it is self-supporting and can be sent for publication.
I remain of my opinion on the notes made for the introduction and the materials and methods, but I accept the point of view of the authors.
