Tardigrades (Tardigrada) of Colombia: Historical Overview, Distribution, New Records, and an Updated Taxonomic Checklist

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

You have prepared a valuable manuscript, which will be a good basis for further faunistic and taxonomic research of tardigrades in the territory of Colombia. You have taken care to critically assess the literary data and collection material. I hope that my following comments and suggestions will help improve your manuscript.

I am going to start with the most important information that you could not get from other sources. After the publication of the Paramacrobiotus derkai description, several microscopic slides  with paratypes were placed in two institutions:

1. In November 2008, I sent two slides (350/25 with three adults and 350/36 with 7 eggs) to the address: Doctor Fernando Gast -director, Instituto Alexander von Humboldt - IAVH, Calle # 28A No. 15-09, PBX: 3202767, Bogotá D.C., Colombia. I hope the slides are still there. Please add the information in Table 2.

2. During the Symposium in Tuebingen, I gave prof. Kristensen six slides (350/3, 5-6, 23, 26, 28) for Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Please also include this information in Table 2. At the same time, please delete the sentence "This material is entirely deposited in European collections, and there are no duplicates in Colombian biological collections." (line 292).

I later reanalyzed the sample from which Paramacrobiotus derkai was described and found a potentially new species of the genus Claxtonia. We published information about it in Gasiorek et al. (2023) [Gąsiorek, P., Degma, P. & Michalczyk, Ł. (2023) Hiding in the Arctic and in mountains: a (dis)entangled classification of Claxtonia (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2023, XX, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlad029]. I think you should include this information in Table 3 and this will increase the number of species in Colombia to 43 (26 + 17). Next, it is necessary to change the information about the number of species in lines 22, 423, 425, 434, 482, 483 and 485 (the number of genera and families must also be changed there due to the addition of the genus Claxtonia and the proposed additional families - see below). Apparently, the number of taxa in the BOY department in Figure 2 (on the right) should be increased to two taxa.

Names of genera, species and species groups must be italicized! Please edit all names in lines 143-254 and Table 1 title.

Introduced abbreviations (if necessary) should be explained before or during the first use and therefore:

1. lines 56-57: I suggest canceling the abbreviations PCM, DIC and SEM and write these microscopy techniques without abbreviations (even if most readers know these abbreviations) because they were not used even once.

2. line 104: The abbreviation "SiB" is explained further on lines 284-285. It should be explained the first time it is used, i.e. on line 104 and no further.

3. line 105: The abbreviation "GBIF" is explained further on lines 285-286 and 288, but it should already be explained here in line 105.

4. line 132: The abbreviation "RNC: 207" should be explained here and not further (it is explained on lines 281-282).

5. line 323: Please explain the abbreviation CBUMAG.

6. line 513: the abbreviation ANLA is already explained on line 509 - there is no need to explain it again here.

7. Table 1 title: Explanation of the abbreviations ATL, BOL and CES is missing.

8. Table 2 title: Abbreviations of collections are usually separated from their location here by a dash. The dash is missing after CB&P. Complete it please.

9. Table 3 title: Please add an explanation of the abbreviations to the collections and the department CAU.

I think that you should apply all current knowledge in the manuscript, and therefore I suggest:

1. to refer to the more current 42nd edition of the Checklist from the beginning of 2023 on lines 13 and 33, according to which we already know more than 1450 Tardigrada species. In the list you should include the link https://iris.unimore.it/retrieve/bf8e14a4-625f-4cdd-8100-347e5cbc5f63/Actual%20checklist%20of%20Tardigrada%2042th%20Edition%2009-01-23.pdf

2. include Adropion and Itaquascon in the family Itaquasconidae as well as Notahypsibius in the family Pilatobiidae in Table 1 according to Tumanov & Tsvetkova (2023) [Tumanov, D.V. & Tsvetkova, A. Yu. (2023) Some have drops and some do not, but can we rely on that? Re-investigation of Diphascon tenue (Tardigrada: Eutardigrada) with discussion of the phylogeny and taxonomy of the superfamily Hypsibioidea. Zoosystematica Rossica 32: 50-74.], who elevated the subfamilies Itaquasconinae and Pilatobiinae to family rank.

3. include Adropion, Itaquascon and Platicrista in the family Itaquasconidae in Table 2 according to Tumanov & Tsvetkova (2023).

4. include Notahypsibius arcticus in the family Pilatobiidae in Table 3 according to Tumanov & Tsvetkova (2023).

5. include Acutuncus antarcticus in the family Acutuncidae  in Table 1 according to Vecchi et al. (2023) [Vecchi, M., Tsvetkova, A., Stec, D., Ferrari, C., Calhim, S. & Tumanov, D. (2023) Expanding Acutuncus: Phylogenetics and morphological analyses reveal a considerably wider distribution for this tardigrade genus. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 180, 107707].

Other miscellanies:

1. Chapter 3.2 is not easy to read because genera and species are not separated by empty lines. I suggest inserting dividing lines between genera and species as well as between species.

2. lines 92-93: Apparently, the words in the title should start with capital letters.

3. line 107: "specimens collected in 2018" instead of "specimens collected 2018"

4. line 143: You wrote "while 27 others were recorded". In Table 1, I found 26 and not 27 records published by [21-23] and [39] (except Hypsibius fuhrmanni). If I'm not mistaken, please correct the sentence.

5. line 266: You wrote "The period between 2014 and 2023 has been the most active..." but the works cited below cover the period 2008-2022. Please correct the sentence.

6. lines 282-283: You wrote "Currently, this collection houses approximately 12,500 legally collected specimens, including type material (holotypes and paratypes) of nine species." - I suggest adding a reference to Table 2.

7. Figure 1 legend: I suggest that references to publications should also be supplemented with serial numbers from the bibliography.

8. Figure 2 legend: It is unusual when you first describe the image on the right and then the image on the left. I suggest the opposite order.

9. Table 1: You state that Echiniscus testudo was reported in [23]. However, I did not find it in the mentioned article.

10. Table 1: I didn't even find Acutuncus/Macrobiotus antarcticus in [23].

11. Table 1: Dianea sattleri is invalidated or questioned in presented manuscript but in the text this is not justified anywhere

12. Table 1: Murrayon pullari belongs to the family Murrayidae and not to Macrobiotidae.

13. Table 2: For each species, you list a scientific collection for each department, only for Bryodelphax kristenseni you list only two collections for three departments. Don't you need to add one more collection?

14. Table 2: For Milnesium katarzynae, the departments are separated by semicolons, but the semicolons are absent in two species: Bryodelphax kristenseni and Kristenseniscus kofordi. Please add them.

15. Table 2: Species described from Colombia are in bold, but for some the authors and years of description are also in bold, and for others not - please unify.

16. Table 2 title: Scientific collections are located inconsistently. For some, you include the name of the institution and the city as well as the state, but for some, you do not, e.g. for CCC (by the way, you state the abbreviation CCC here twice), for Polish universities you even state the exact address with the zip code. Somewhere you have a city and a state in parentheses (Bogotá, Colombia) and elsewhere you don't. Please standardize the locations of collections. I suggest to omit  the street, number and zip-code and not to give the city and the state into parentheses.

17. Table 2 title: Please add the location of Łukasz Michalczyk collection - I think it could be Department of Invertebrate Evolution, Institute of Zoology and Biomedical Research, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland. The same is for DE.IZBR (it is not Department of Entomology now).

18. Table 3: Why do you distinguish two separate taxa Diphascon pingue pingue sensu lato and Diphascon sp. pingue group in Table 3? Are you convinced that these are two different species? Please justify this somewhere in the text.

19. Milnesium cf. barbadosense was reported in Columbia in [53] according to Table 3 but also in [48] according to line 395. Probably [48] should also be mentioned in Table 3 since it appeared earlier than [53]. I don't have [48], so I can't verify whether it actually contains a record of M. cf. barbadosense.

20. The family Ramazzottidae is not in the same position in Table 1 and Table 3. Please unify the arrangement (order) of the families in tables.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Journal Review:  Diversity

Title: Tardigrades (Tardigrada) of Colombia: Historical Overview, Distribution, New Records, and an Updated Taxonomic Checklist

Authors: Dayanna Venencia-Sayas, Rosana Londoño, Anisbeth Daza, Luciani Pertuz, Gabriel Marín-Muñoz, Mario H. Londoño- Mesa, Oscar Lisi, Daniele Camarda, and Sigmer Quiroga

 

This manuscript offers an overview of the current literature with additional new records regarding tardigrades recorded in Colombia.  It is a well written manuscript with good English and provides a very useful data set for any working in this field and region of the world.  The authors are to be commended for the time and effort required for such a manuscript.

 

There are a few very minor points in need of correcting.

 

Is there a reason that taxa names in the text are written in roman font and not italics?  In the Tables and the Faunistic Account the names are in italics. 

 

The use of the term ‘known’ for where a taxon has been recorded.  This is possibly my pedantic use of English, but it is possible that a taxon is known from somewhere else but just has not been reported in the literature.  

 

There are some occasions where the English is a little confused and I have made a few suggestions in the attached file.

 

With the minor corrections amended, I believe this is a very good manuscript with useful data that is very suitable to the remit of the Diversity Journal, and should be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is mainly good in most sections of the manuscript.  There is a suggestion that it has not been written entirely by one person.  There are, therefore, some sections where the English needs attention.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your insightful feedback on the initial version was invaluable, and we have diligently incorporated the suggested changes using the "Track Changes" feature.

Additionally, we have taken into consideration the feedback provided by three other reviewers and have integrated their comments to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

In relation to the italicization of species names, in the initial version of the manuscript, all scientific names were appropriately formatted in italics. Nevertheless, a formatting issue arose in the version forwarded to the reviewers. We want to reassure you that we have diligently reviewed and rectified all scientific names throughout the entire manuscript.

On the other hand, we agree with the use of the word 'known' in some sections of the manuscript, and we have added it especially in the abstract section, Table 1, and results. 

Thank you once again for your feedback, and we are confident that with your valuable review, our manuscript has significantly improved. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A nice summary of work done so far. The biggest problem is that genera and species have not been italicized in the text. Just a few other suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Just a few sentences where the translation does not make sense in English as is. I have suggested an alternative in those cases.

Author Response

We appreciate your dedicated effort in examining the manuscript. Your valuable insights on the initial draft have been crucial, and we have carefully implemented the recommended modifications using the "Track Changes" functionality. Furthermore, we have considered the input from three additional reviewers and integrated their comments to improve the manuscript's overall quality.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled: “Tardigrades (Tardigrada) of Colombia: Historical Overview, Distribution, New Records, and an Updated Taxonomic Checklist” is a very interesting and well-written study of the biodiversity of Colombian tardigrades. The authors verified the available literature data and supplemented them with novel tardigrade records. I congratulate the authors on obtaining interesting results. Unfortunately, as is the case with manuscripts containing so much data, the authors did not avoid minor errors.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

All species names mentioned in the manuscript should be italicized. Unfortunately, many species names, especially in the first part of the manuscript, are not written in italics. This should be changed.

The authors must standardize the system of abbreviating species names. In line 334 there is B. kristenseni while in line 504 there is Mil. katarzynae. The note applies to the entire manuscript.

The form of specifying the number of individuals, especially regarding one individual, also needs to be unified. Lines 323-389 – one or 1 specimen?

Line 482: forty-two or 42?

Lines: 267-268: The authors write that 11 scientific articles have been published and cite only 10. Why was one article omitted?

Lines 441-442: (Department of Entomology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland) should be added after Michalczyk.

Please explain on what basis the sampling sites described in paragraph 2.2 were selected.

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your insightful feedback on the initial version has been incredibly helpful, and we've diligently incorporated the suggested changes using the "Track Changes" feature.

In addition, we've taken into account the feedback provided by three other reviewers and have integrated their comments to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

In reference to specific observations:

Comment 1. All species names mentioned in the manuscript should be italicized. Unfortunately, many species names, especially in the first part of the manuscript, are not written in italics. This should be changed.

Response 1: In the version of the manuscript submitted, all scientific names were correctly formatted in italics. However, there was a configuration issue in the version sent to the reviewers. We would like to assure you that all scientific names have been thoroughly reviewed and rectified throughout the entire manuscript.

Comment 2. The authors must standardize the system of abbreviating species names. In line 334 there is B. kristenseni while in line 504 there is Mil. katarzynae. The note applies to the entire manuscript.

Response 2: Certainly. We have adopted a standardized system for abbreviating species names, utilizing only a single letter.

Comment 3. The form of specifying the number of individuals, especially regarding one individual, also needs to be unified. Lines 323-389 – one or 1 specimen?

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have unified the numbers related to the quantity of specimens, presenting them in numeric format rather than text.

Comment 4. Line 482: forty-two or 42?

Response 4: Thank you for the recommendation. We have changed the text format to numeric as follows: "A total of 42..."

Comment 5. Lines: 267-268: The authors write that 11 scientific articles have been published and cite only 10. Why was one article omitted?

Response 5: Thank you for bringing our error to our attention. It's actually only 10, and it has been corrected in the text.

Comment 6. Lines 441-442: (Department of Entomology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland) should be added after Michalczyk.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable feedback. This suggestion has also been made by other reviewers and has been implemented.

Comment 7. Please explain on what basis the sampling sites described in paragraph 2.2 were selected.

Response 7: Thank you for the suggestion. The explanation has been added in paragraph 2.2. in this manner. “All these locations are part of the research project "Water bears (Tardigrada) associated with bryophytes and lichens in fragments of tropical dry forest of Los Montes de María and La Serranía de Piojó. A contribution to the biodiversity of Colombia," and were selected for reasons of accessibility and the presence of microhabitats. In the department of Antioquia, specimens were retrieved from dried moss samples collected at the campus of Universidad de Antioquia as part of the Master degree project "Tardigrade of the city of Medellin, Colombia".

Thank you once again for your feedback, and we are confident that with your valuable review, our manuscript has significantly improved