Historical and Contemporary Herbaria as a Source of Data in Plant Taxonomy and Phytogeography Research: An Example from Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is not much novel content in this article that will be of interest to a general audience. Much material is taken from other sources (e.g., Index Herbariorum annual report).  The current uses of herbarium specimens has been extensively covered in other articles (some of which are cited in this article).

I think there would be more interest in an article that focussed on the status and activities of Polish herbaria, addressing questions about the status digitization, imaging of Polish herbaria; what types of joint projects are Polish herbaria engaged in, what are some of the challenges faced, how are Polish herbaria used for education, conservation, etc.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1.

We (authors) thank you  for the critical review and drawing attention to important content that should be included in the article. Therefore, we have expanded the content of article regarding the status and activities of Polish herbaria and the scope of scientific work related to Polish herbaria (issues of digitization of Polish herbaria). We highlighted joint projects in which Polish herbaria are involved. In the discussion and conclusions, we included content related to the challenges and threats facing Polish herbaria. At the same time, in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion, we limited the content on world herbaria, which was based on data taken from the Index Herbariorum. Due to these changes, we have increased the number of references.  We have improved the English language with critical revision from a native speaker. We hope that the article is now more interesting.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

please find my comments in attachment.

Sincerely,

the reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs revision by a native speaker

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2.

We (authors) thank to Reviewer 2. for the critical review and drawing attention to important content that should be included in the article. The content in the article, suggested by the reviewer, has been corrected or changed. We have expanded the content regarding the status and activities of Polish herbaria and the scope of scientific work related to Polish herbaria. We highlighted joint projects in which Polish herbaria are involved. We have also expanded the content related to the condition and activities of Polish herbaria (issues of digitization of Polish herbaria). In the discussion and conclusions, we included content related to the challenges and threats facing Polish herbaria.

In accordance with the Reviewer's recommendations, the results, discussion and conclusions were written so that their content was consistent with each other. At the same time, we limited the content on world herbaria, which was based on data taken from the Index Herbariorum.

We corrected detailed errors indicated by the reviewer: we introduced bibliographic data from the works of Baldini et al. (2022) and Cristofolini (2024), we replaced the common name with the Latin name in the case of Oenothera biennis. We have corrected the species names "glazioviana" and "fruticosa" and other typographical errors. Due to these changes, we have increased the number of references. We have improved the English language with critical revision from a native speaker.

We hope that now the article is more interesting and meets the requirements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I think it aims to highlight the role that the Polish herbaria have had and have in many investigations on taxonomy, phytogeography and conservation of rare taxa. In particular, the need to improve many little-known herbaria is underlined and for which greater visibility is required as well as inclusion in international circuits. Furthermore, it is worthy of note the overview that is provided regarding the investigations, of a phytogeographical or taxonomic nature, which involved groups of taxa of interest of which some of the herbaria under investigation contain specimens with an indisputable taxonomic role, as for example holotypus. Thanks to the examination of these samples, a contribution was made to the resolution of taxonomic problems linked for example to the correct attribution of one rank rather than another.

 

Both in the discussion and in the conclusions the results of the research are adequately highlighted and references base is good.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 3.

We (authors) thank the Reviewer 3. for opinion and for drawing attention to the important content of the article. Due to the suggestions of other reviewers, we have expanded the content regarding the status and activities of Polish herbaria and the scope of scientific work related to Polish herbaria. We highlighted joint projects in which Polish herbaria are involved. In the discussion and conclusions, we included content related to the challenges and threats facing Polish herbaria. We hope that the article is now more interesting.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript is perfect for publication, but could be better explored in relation to the data that herbaria offer for conservation projects. The publication addresses the importance of herbaria, especially those in Poland. The manuscript is original in terms of the relevant information contained in the collections of dried plants in Poland. The topic is very important because herbarium collections are little known to the general public, and it is precisely from this material that major research in the various areas of botany originates. The methodology is perfect and the results are in accordance with the arguments presented. The references are current and in accordance with the announced theme. The images are consistent with the topics shown and help to understand the text presented.   I reinforce my decision to publish with more emphasis on conservation through the data obtained from studies with dried plants.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 4.

We (authors) thank the Reviewer 4. for opinion and drawing attention to the important content included in the article. Due to the opinions of other reviewers, we have expanded the content regarding the status and activities of Polish herbaria and the scope of scientific work related to Polish herbaria. We highlighted joint projects in which Polish herbaria are involved. In the discussion and conclusions, we included content related to the challenges and threats facing Polish herbaria. Due to these changes, we have slightly increased the number of references. We hope that the article is now more interesting.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This article has been notably improved with respect to the last version.

Only some minor comments:

 

- lines 28-29: please be aware that the attribution to Gherardo Cibo of the herbaria preserved in Rome is no longer supported. They are currently attributed to Francesco Petrollini and are dated to 1550-1553 (cfr. Cristofolini 2024). Please modify accordingly

 

- line 29: Ulisse Aldrovandi’s herbarium dates back to years 1551-1586 (see Baldini et al. 2022). Please modify accordingly

 

- lines 312-313: probably it is better to link the sentences: «… of scientific research results [94, 95, 91]. For example, field research and taxonomic revisions…»

 

- line 314: Oenothera (in italics!)

 

- lines 324-327: please reformulate the sentence, I cannot understand the sense

 

I hope these comments can help to improve the manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

 

the reviewer

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor changes required.

Please ask a native speaker to check the text again: in some points the prose is a bit tiring to understand

Author Response

We (authors) thank to Reviewer 2. for the following review and drawing attention to important content. We revise our manuscript according to the referees’ comments. The sentence in the article, suggested by the reviewer, has been corrected or changed (minor correction). We have corrected detailed errors indicated by the reviewer:

 - lines 28-29: please be aware that the attribution to Gherardo Cibo of the herbaria preserved in Rome is no longer supported. They are currently attributed to Francesco Petrollini and are dated to 1550-1553 (cfr. Cristofolini 2024). Please modify accordingly

--Corrected name from herbarium G.Cibo to F.Petrollini

--Changed sentence arrangement – ​​herbarium order

--Changed dates of the Ratzenberger herbarium

 - line 29: Ulisse Aldrovandi’s herbarium dates back to years 1551-1586 (see Baldini et al. 2022). Please modify accordingly

--Corrected dates of the Aldrovandi herbarium for Baldini et all 2022 

- lines 312-313: probably it is better to link the sentences: «… of scientific research results [94, 95, 91]. For example, field research and taxonomic revisions…»

--Corrected according to the reviewer's instructions

- line 314: Oenothera (in italics!)

--Corrected according to the reviewer's instructions

- lines 324-327: please reformulate the sentence, I cannot understand the sense

--The sentence is corrected according to the reviewer's instructions

 

We have improved the English language with another critical revision from a native speaker.

We hope that now the article is now more interesting, better and meets the requirements.