Inocybaceae (Basidiomycota) in Ectomycorrhizal Symbiosis with Halimium (Cistaceae), and the Description of Two New Species of Inocybe from Sardinia (Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and Authors,
The following are comments on the paper entitled "Halimium as an Ectomycorrhizal Host Plant: Focus on Inocybaceae (Basidiomycota), with the Description of Two New Inocybe Species from Sardinia (Italy)".
The paper describes the remarkable diversity of the basidiomycetous family Inocybaceae in Halimium stands with the description of two new species of Inocybe, I. halimiphila sp. nov. and Inocybe rupribes sp. nov. collected among Halimium. Such a study is very interesting because only few works are reported on the diversity of Inocybaceae of certain plants or the partnership of Inocybaceae and their host plants. The manuscript has been carefully prepared and is suitable for publication in Diversity. However, before publication, there are still some points that need to be improved for the current version of the MS.
In the abstract, the background of the study was too long, please summarize this part because the same content was also present in the introduction. Meanwhile, the results part in the abstract should be enriched.
Authors are encouraged to use all sequences related to Halimium, including those downloaded and generated by the author (all in Table 1), together with types or authentic materials of those documented species to be included in the phylogeny, for a clearer and more accurate identification of documented species and undescribed taxa.
In the current "Results & Discussions" section, the phylogeny of the two new species, along with some comparisons with close taxa, seems somewhat repetitive with those in the current taxonomy section.
In the "Results & Discussions" it seems to be not logical and clear enough. Therefore, how about the authors consider combining the taxonomy part into "Results" and the discussions into a "Discussions" part.
For the descriptions of the two new species, please add some more pictures of the microstructures, e.g. at least more pictures of Cheilocystidia and Pleurocystida with lower part of their bodies, because it is important for a reader or scholar to better recognize them. Nevertheless, it would be better if the authors would provide some brief descriptions and/or cross sections of the morphology for the ectomycorrhiza of the two new species.
In the reference part, please pay attention to "Kuyper, T.W. A revision of the genus Inocybe in Europe I. Persoonia 1986, 3 (Supplement), 1-247", the title is incomplete. Also, all taxonomic names should be in italics according to Jof STYLE, please check them all.
Anyway, this is a facilitating work on the ecology of Inocybaceae and their host plant. I recommend a minor revision of the manuscript before publication.
Author Response
Comment 1: In the abstract, the background of the study was too long, please summarize this part because the same content was also present in the introduction. Meanwhile, the results part in the abstract should be enriched.
Reply: the Abstract has been modified following Reviewer's suggestions.
Comment 2: Authors are encouraged to use all sequences related to Halimium, including those downloaded and generated by the author (all in Table 1), together with types or authentic materials of those documented species to be included in the phylogeny, for a clearer and more accurate identification of documented species and undescribed taxa.
Reply: all sequences listed in Table 2 have been used for the phylogenetic analysis and the molecular definition of the new Inocybe species (Fig. 3). Table 1, instead, lists all known species of Inocybaceae linked to Halimium, including a potentially new Pseudosperma. Using all these sequences for the phylogenetic analysis goes beyond the scope of the present article, and, in the case of Pseudospewrma, is meaningless. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the sequences in Table 1 is already present in the phylogeny.
Comment 3: In the current "Results & Discussions" section, the phylogeny of the two new species, along with some comparisons with close taxa, seems somewhat repetitive with those in the current taxonomy section.
Reply: we agree with Reviewer's observation, and modified the text in the Results and Discussion text, to avoid excessive repetitions with what reported in the Taxonomy section, although the meaning remains similar. In particular, we refereed the interested readers to details contained in the Taxonomy section.
Comment 4: In the "Results & Discussions" it seems to be not logical and clear enough. Therefore, how about the authors consider combining the taxonomy part into "Results" and the discussions into a "Discussions" part.
Reply: in the revision, we did not follow the Reviewer's suggestion, but rather sticked to the journal style for taxonomic papers, where the Taxonomy section follows both Results and Discussion.
Comment 5: For the descriptions of the two new species, please add some more pictures of the microstructures, e.g. at least more pictures of Cheilocystidia and Pleurocystida with lower part of their bodies, because it is important for a reader or scholar to better recognize them. Nevertheless, it would be better if the authors would provide some brief descriptions and/or cross sections of the morphology for the ectomycorrhiza of the two new species.
Reply: we have strived to add more picture of microstructures, to help the Audience with the description of the new species. As for the ectomycorrhizae, we extended a bit the description of morphological charactyers, but we are unable at this stage to provide cross sections and/or description of anatomical features, sorry for that.
Comment 6: In the reference part, please pay attention to "Kuyper, T.W. A revision of the genus Inocybe in Europe I. Persoonia 1986, 3 (Supplement), 1-247", the title is incomplete. Also, all taxonomic names should be in italics according to Jof STYLE, please check them all.
Reply: The reference's title has been completed. As for the taxonomic names, we reported the titles as they were in the original publications. In many cases, family names, for example, are not originally in italics.
Comment: Anyway, this is a facilitating work on the ecology of Inocybaceae and their host plant. I recommend a minor revision of the manuscript before publication.
Reply: we vividly thank the anonymous Reviewer for her/his useful suggestions and the final kind comment on our work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral characterization of the manuscript
The reviewed manuscript is related to the first record of Halimium-specific ectomycorrhizal fungal species ever reported and known both as sporocarp and mycorrhiza: Inocybe halimiphila Mua, Sanna, A. Rinaldi & Casula, sp. nov., and Inocybe rubripes Sanna, Mua, A. Rinaldi & Casula, sp. nov.
There are only few points to be addressed by the authors.
1. The authors describe two new species of the basidiomycete Inocybe that were collected under Halimium, a host plant within the ectomycorrhizal symbiosis established, and discuss the main morphological, ecological characters and evolutionary relationships distinguishing the new species. It is the main question addressed by the research.
In this relation, title of the manuscript is desirable to be changed to build up hierarchy of importance of the results in this work. This study seems to have primary impact on the fungal component, while the host plant characterization received little attention, if any. The title could be "Two new species of Inocybe (Basidiomycota) from Sardinia (Italy) found in Halimium ectomycorrhiza".
Leonardi, M.; Furtado, A.N.M.; Comandini, O.; Geml, J.; Rinaldi, A.C. Halimium as an ectomycorrhizal symbiont. New records and an appreciation of known fungal diversity. Mycol. Prog. 2020, 19, 1495–1509.
2. Table 1: please explain what evidences give grounds to call Inocybe inexpectata Villarreal, Esteve-Rav., Heykoop & E. Horak (Line 185, referred to in [54]) as Tubariomyces inexpectata (M. Villarreal, Esteve-Raventós, Heykoop & E. Horak) Esteve-Raventós & Matheny in Table 1, which again refers to the same reference [54] only? Are the additional references needed?
3. Conclusion section of the manuscript is omitted in its explicit form, that somehow prevents the adequate estimation of the bulk of data which are needed additionally to improve the provisional classification of fungal specimen under study.
Author Response
Comment 1: The authors describe two new species of the basidiomycete Inocybe that were collected under Halimium, a host plant within the ectomycorrhizal symbiosis established, and discuss the main morphological, ecological characters and evolutionary relationships distinguishing the new species. It is the main question addressed by the research. In this relation, title of the manuscript is desirable to be changed to build up hierarchy of importance of the results in this work. This study seems to have primary impact on the fungal component, while the host plant characterization received little attention, if any. The title could be "Two new species of Inocybe (Basidiomycota) from Sardinia (Italy) found in Halimium ectomycorrhiza".
Reply: we followed the Reviewer's suggestion, and modified the title. Since one of the goals of the article is to focus on Inocybaceae as ectomycorrhizal mycobionts of Halimium, besides the description of new species, the new version highlights this aspect.
Comment 2: Table 1: please explain what evidences give grounds to call Inocybe inexpectata Villarreal, Esteve-Rav., Heykoop & E. Horak (Line 185, referred to in [54]) as Tubariomyces inexpectata (M. Villarreal, Esteve-Raventós, Heykoop & E. Horak) Esteve-Raventós & Matheny in Table 1, which again refers to the same reference [54] only? Are the additional references needed?
Reply: we corrected this entry in Table 1, to Tubariomyces inexpectatus (the synonymy with Inocybe inexpectata is reported both in MycoBank and Indef Fungorum).
Comment 3: Conclusion section of the manuscript is omitted in its explicit form, that somehow prevents the adequate estimation of the bulk of data which are needed additionally to improve the provisional classification of fungal specimen under study.
Reply: we agree with the Reviewer also on this issue, and added a brief Conclusions section.
