One Genome, Multiple Phenotypes: Would Rhodnius milesi Carcavallo, Rocha, Galvão & Jurberg, 2001 (Hemiptera, Triatominae) Be a Valid Species or a Phenotypic Polymorphism of R. neglectus Lent, 1954?^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It's a valuable manuscript but I have a few questions and suggestions:

1. Why authors didn't analyse any morphological characters? In my opinion, authors should analyse all morphological genus characters and species characters to make a decision about the formal synonymization of any taxons. Please check the morphological characters. It should correspond with your results.

2. Why authors didn't explain why Haldane’s rule does not apply in Triatominae? 

3. Figure 4 isn’t readable. No scale bar in Figure 4.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

It's a valuable manuscript but I have a few questions and suggestions:

Thank you for finding our manuscript valuable and suitable for publication in Diversity. We also thank you for the suggestions. We present below the modifications/clarifications made.

1. Why authors didn't analyse any morphological characters? In my opinion, authors should analyse all morphological genus characters and species characters to make a decision about the formal synonymization of any taxons. Please check the morphological characters. It should correspond with your results.

The morphological characterization of both species has already been carried out in the descriptions/redescriptions of each taxon (see Valente et al., 2001 and Lent and Wygodzinsky, 1979), in addition to having already been revisited in Galvão (2014) (showing few divergences). Furthermore, Alvarez et al. (2024) carried out geometric morphometric studies between Rhodnius spp. and suggested that R. milesi is a variant of R. neglectus (emphasizing the need for formal synonymization of these species). However, in the Rhodniini tribe, even if the species present morphological divergences, the phenotypic characters are not reliable for taxonomy (as we pointed out in the introduction, the species of this tribe present problems associated with cryptic speciation and phenotypic plasticity) (see Nascimento et al., 2019). Thus, even if small morphological divergences are observed between these species (Galvão 2014), this would not support the specific status (the phenetic species concept, although very common for decades, can no longer be used robustly for taxonomic studies in groups that present cryptic speciation and polytypic species). Rhodnius taquarussuensis, for example, was described in 2017 based on morphological and cytogenetic differences when compared to R. neglectus. However, Nascimento et al. (2019), through molecular analyzes and experimental crossings, it was observed that they were the same taxon with phenotypic plasticity (in this article, the authors highlight the importance of carrying out molecular studies on the species of this tribe to assess the specific status of the taxa - based on the biological and phylogenetic concept of species). Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to present again the comparative morphological characteristics between the species (since, as mentioned above, they can be observed in several other publications) (see Valente et al., 2001 and Lent and Wygodzinsky, 1979, Galvão, 2014).

To clarify this in the text, we changed it to:

“Rhodnius milesi is a species reported in the states of Pará and Rondônia [24,25] that was described based on comparative morphological studies with R. dalessandroi Carcavallo & Barreto, 1976 [24]. However, phylogenetic systematic studies have grouped R. milesi with R. neglectus and, therefore, suggested that they are the same species [11]; Although some morphological differences in the external morphology [26], as well as, in the structures of female genitalia [27] and exochorial cells of eggs [28] have been observed, Galvão [29] and Jurberg [30] did not include this species in the dichotomous keys for adult Rhodnius due to the absence of external diagnostic characters when compared to R. neglectus. Furthermore, Alvarez et al. [31] recently carried out geometric morphometric studies between Rhodnius spp. and suggested that R. milesi is a variant of R. neglectus (emphasizing the need for formal synonymization of these species).”

“Thus, considering that morphological [12,29,30] and morphometric [31] studies have already been carried out and point out many similarities (suggesting, even, the formal synonymization of taxa [31]), we analyzed the specific status of R. milesi in relation to R. neglectus using phylogenetic studies with the mitochondrial gene cytochrome B (cyt B) and the study of reproductive barriers through experimental crosses.”

2. Why authors didn't explain why Haldane’s rule does not apply in Triatominae?

To clarify this in the text, we changed it to:

“Finally, the analysis of the proportion between male and female hybrids demonstrated that Haldane's rule was not acting, once 98 adult males and 80 females resulted from the cross between R. milesi ♀ x R. neglectus ♂, and 115 adult males and 102 females resulted from the cross between R. neglectus ♀ x R. milesi ♂. Although Perlowagora-Szumlewics and Correia [69] observed that a distortion of the sex ratio in favor of the female was occurring in crosses between T. pseudomaculata Corrêa & Espínola, 1964 and T. sordida, T. pseudomaculata and T. infestans, T. pseudomaculata and T. brasiliensis Neiva, 1911, and between R. neglectus and R. prolixus and, with this, they suggested that the rule was acting in triatominae crosses, all other results in the literature suggest that the rule does not apply in Triatominae [66,68] (as observed in our experiments for Rhodnius spp., interspecific crosses between Mepraia spp. [66] and between Panstrongylus spp. [68] also produce adult hybrids of both sexes, suggesting that Haldane's rule may not be applicable to these insect vectors).”

3. Figure 4 isn’t readable. No scale bar in Figure 4.

We include the scale in the legend: “Figure 4. Meiotic metaphase of hybrids resulting from the cross between R. milesi and R. neglectus. Note 100% pairing between chromosomes. Bar: 10 μm.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The work submitted for review is of a high standard and I actually have no substantive comments about it. What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that the manuscript is very readable and pleasant to read.

 

I only have one comment. please apply the following rule to all taxa mentioned in the text:

 

"The first mention of taxon should include the unabbreviated scientific name along with the authority(ies). The authority and year for a taxonomic name should be provided, and the reference in which that taxon was described should be included in the literature cited section."

 

Best wishes

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear authors,

The work submitted for review is of a high standard and I actually have no substantive comments about it. What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that the manuscript is very readable and pleasant to read.

 

I only have one comment. please apply the following rule to all taxa mentioned in the text:

"The first mention of taxon should include the unabbreviated scientific name along with the authority(ies). The authority and year for a taxonomic name should be provided, and the reference in which that taxon was described should be included in the literature cited section."

Best wishes

Thank you for considering our manuscript important and suitable for publication in Diversity.

We highlight that we review all scientific names and include the author and year of description every time the names are mentioned for the first time in the text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for the clear answers and for changing the text according to my suggestions. Now, the manuscript looks better.

Author Response

All modifications have been inserted and made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx