On the Origin of Cultivated Roses: DNA Authentication of the Bourbon Rose Founding Pedigree
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript is worth publishing with few minor modifications. Notice particularly the following points that need updating
- In SSR haplotype tables (ie. Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5) align the haplotype "sizes" (i.e. all the identical values should be on the same line). By the way, colors used for haplotypes should be explained. It seems that this is to highlight hapoltypes common between samples but there is also some lenght variation between coloured values (exemple Table 4 RMS065 with 108,5-109-110 and 116,5-117 values in red; Rw55E12 with 165-164,5; Rw52D4 with 212-213 in red and 212 both in red an blue).
- Table 4 do not confirm link between 'Kazanlik' and 'Quatre Saisons' as expressed in the text (lines 234-249). This part of the article may be removed or updated with complete haplotype data for 'Kazanlik'. Remouving that part will not change the may results of this study.
- That will also be pertinent to have distinct separate tables for haplotype data of Stanwell Perpetual, Champney's Pink Cluster on one side and R. x borboniana/Bourbon Jacques and Reine des Ile-Bourbon on the other.
A few other comments are in the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the referee for his/her critical and useful comments that have helped us to improve the revised version of the manuscript. According to your suggestions and criticisms, we have corrected the minor changes as following:
we aligned the identical haplotype size on the same line, helping the comparisons within the tables. For a given allele, occasional length variations exist. In few occasions, we had shortage of the HD400 dye mix and may use another dye. Hence, the small differences of length among the values
we deleted our partial data that suggest the identity between ‘Kazanlik’ and ‘Quatre Saisons’. We have also deleted or corrected to answer all the few points you mentioned in your annotated attached file.
we made a distinct separation between seedlings and the half-sisters in the presentation of the tables. We keep the two seedlings of ‘Rose Edouard’ in Table 3 and put together the different half-sisters in Table 5. Hereby, we presented the three half-sisters and their parents. The order of presentation was established according to a strict and helpful continuum of the parental relationship. ‘Slater’s Crimson’ and ‘Bengal Crimson’ are now under table 4 with ‘Old Blush cimbing’.
In addition,
We realized that the ‘Stanwell Rose’ originated from Stanwell, in west London, and not from Scotland. We change this accordingly in both Table 1 and in the text.
The data about the moschata rose were missing in the list of Table 1. We have completed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Alioua and Heitzler's manuscript describes the origin of bourbon roses, and more specifically of the ‘Edouard Rose” and its related cultivars, ‘Champneys' Pink Cluster’ and ‘Stanwell Perpetual’. Using DNA markers, they demonstrate that the parental roots are the perpetual flowering damask rose R. damascena ‘Quatre Saisons’, and the Chinese rose R. chiennsis cv ‘Old Blush’. The data are consistent with previous reports, including recent genomic studies.
The origin of many rose species and cultivars, although of high economic value, remains a subject of debate in the community. I believe this report provides interesting data that paves the way for further studies in the future.
The manuscript is clearly written and provides all the information and data necessary to support the conclusions.
I recommend the publication of this manuscript, after correction of a few typo errors present in the current version of the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript is clearly written bur requires corerction of few typo errors.
Author Response
We thank the referee for his/her appreciations and for the useful comments that have helped us to improve the revised version of the manuscript. According to your suggestions, we have corrected a dozen of typo errors throughout the manuscript. We hope we could take up all the cases.
In addition,
We realized that the ‘Stanwell Rose’ originated from Stanwell, in west London, and not from Scotland. We change this accordingly in both Table 1 and in the text.
The data about the moschata rose were missing in the list of Table 1. We have completed.
