Flightless Females in the Neotropical Moth Genus Cataspilates Warren (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) †

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Dear REVIEWER 1,

Thank you very much for all your careful suggestions!!

Suggestion 1. Phylogenetic position of Cataspilates in the Boarmiini was proposed by Pitkin (2002), as mentioned on line 47 in the current manuscript, but this was done without detailed justification. The data presented in the manuscript supports Boarmiini classification, but I would recommend to add this uncertainty to the Introduction. The topic is also mentioned on line 239.

Response to Suggestion 1. This aclaration is included in the Introduction of the revised version.

Suggestion 2.  Line 57. I suggest to replace “confirming” with “suggesting”.

Response to Suggestion 2. Changed in the revised version.

Suggestion 3. Lines 87-88. “Phylogenetic relationships of Cataspilates are still not explored, but male genitalia 87 morphology suggests some closeness to Glenoides McDunnough, …”. Reference(s) need to be added to the literature that illustrates the genitalia of the mentioned taxa. Otherwise, it remains obscure how the morphology was used in this context.

Response to Suggestion 3. The respective references were added in the revised version [13,14].

Suggestion 4. Lines 140-147. Add rearing data (=dates) to the material examined. When caterpillars were collected, when they pupated and when the adults emerged. In the current form, it is uclear what the date means: collecting date of caterpillars, or the date the adults emerged.

Response to the Suggestion 4. The respective data (month) of each event (adult emergence and larva collection) were added in the revised version.

Suggestion 5. If available, I recommend adding photographs of caterpillars, pupa, collecting locality and even host plant to the manuscript.

Response to Suggestion 5. Unfortunately, I am unable to take photos of immature stages of the new species. However, photos of the type locality and the host plant were added in the revised version (Figure 5).

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a nice paper.  My only comment is line 234 - "studies alerted about polyphyly" perhaps better stated as "studies suggest potential polyphyly"  

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Dear REVIEWER 2,

Thank you very much for kindly reviewing my manuscript!!

Suggestion 1. My only comment is line 234 - "studies alerted about polyphyly" perhaps better stated as "studies suggest potential polyphyly".

Response to Suggestion 1. The suggested change is included in the revised version.