A Review of the Curculionoidea (Coleoptera) from European Eocene Ambers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work summarizing knowledge about the previously known weevils from European Eocene ambers.

The list together with the pictures is already valuable enough. Its value increases due to descriptions of new taxons.

However, the manuscript contains a lot of errors and incorrect wording, especially in keys and descriptions.

The use of outdated taxonomy is quite glaring.

All comments have been marked in the text of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the comments on my manuscript that allow to improved it. I corrected the manuscript according to the comments.

Corrections and answers:

The latest works prove, that Rhynchitidae is not family, but subfamily within Attelabidae. Riedel evaluated morphological evidence and concluded, that Rhynchitinae is likely paraphyletic with respect to Attelabinae. This point of view was also adopted in CCPCC (Alonso-Zarazaga et al 2017) and very modern, from point of view of taxonomy, Polish checklist of Curculionoidea (Wanat & Mokrzycki 2018). Riedel, A. 2014. Attelabidae Billberg, 1820, pp. 328–355. In: Leschen R. A. B., Beutel R. G. (eds.). Handbook of Zoology, Coleoptera Volume 3: Morphology and Systematics (Phy tophaga). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Now it is a weevil subfamily in the family Curculionidae. A bark beetle is a very specialized members of the "true weevil" family (Curculionidae). Their current status is subfamily - Scolytinae.

-The author uses a system of Curculionoidea according to the works of the author (2011, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018). These publications provide justifications for the taxonomic status of different groups. A link to these publications is provided in Material and methods.

 

The key is very peculiar because it applies only to currently known and, at the same time, extinct species. It is not universal and it will be difficult to use it in the future. In my opinion, this should be clearly emphasized in the methodology. The key is only for currently described species from eocene amber. It is not identification key for identifying contemporary taxa.

- It was corrected.

 

reading this is very inconvenient. Add some blank lines, bolds and/or different size of a fonts, for a better overview of the list

- It was corrected.

 

You are a single author of this paper, so it is natural, that this is "your" species. You don't need to give your name everywhere. Check please whole ms.

- It was corrected.

 

Hyperini as a part of Entiminae?

- Yes, It is a tribe of the subfamily Entiminae according to Legalov (2011, 2015).

 

sometimes you give a space betwen "=" and a name, but other times you don't. Please standardize it throughout the ms.

- It was corrected.

 

This species was a synonym of Protonaupactus. So if in your opinion Protonaupactus is a new synonym, this species is only an "old" synonym without any special comment or taxonomic action. It is only a name in the list of synonyms.

- It was corrected.

 

the state of character is too general. What is mean "long"? For me "long" is typical for Brentidae and most Curculioninae, but not for most Entiminae, even those mentioned above in the catalogue (e.g. Polydrusini and some Cossonini).

- It was corrected.

 

Wrong number, should be 3. You must check all numbers below.

- It was corrected.

 

Pygidium is one or more of the apical abdominal tergites, so it cant be "absent". It could be concealed or exposed.

- I accept Thompson's (1992) terminology when pygidium can be formed or not.

 

Lack of antithesis in the next section

- It was corrected.

 

concealed or exposed?

 - It was corrected.

 

very awkward and misleading term in the key

- It was corrected.

 

The key should be specific and give the least possible opportunity for misinterpretation and misunderstanding

 - It was corrected.

 

Lack of antithesis in the next section

- It was corrected.

 

Without Nanophyinae or with?

- It was corrected.

 

What is mean "long"? Better - longer than... What is mean "short"? Better - shorter than... not longer than... etc

- It was corrected.

 

Please use any shortcut or change layout of the description. 17 repeats of "antennomere" in a few lines is definitely too many.

- It was corrected.

 

Larger what? Body? is it size without rostrum?

- It was corrected.

 

elongate

- It was corrected.

 

elongate sounds better.

 - It was corrected.

 

If you agree - check throughout ms.

- It was corrected.

 

Tarsomeres: 1st elongate-conical; 2nd wide, conical, bilobed, covers base of 3rd; 3rd bilobed, narrower than 2nd; 5th elongate Much shorter and more clear description

- It was corrected.

 

If you establish a new comb., please cite the "old", original name of the taxon.

- It was corrected.

 

Check it throughout the ms.

- It was corrected.

 

shorter than what? misleading description longer than what? misleading description

- It was corrected.

 

vague description, unacceptable in the key. If you use an adjective in description (shorter, longer, wider, lower etc.), you always have to add some point of reference (shorter than head, XXX time longer than maximum width of rostrum etc.). Without it the key will be usefull only for the author.

- It was corrected.

 

why not 1455-1457? for what this repetition if you have further 1457-1458?

- there are pages with illustrations without description.

 

Add original, an old, name below.

- It was corrected.

 

Where is point 2 in this key?

- It was corrected.

 

then?

- It was corrected.

 

Antennomere...antennomere...antennomere...

- It was corrected.

 

"Margin" sounds better.

- It was corrected.

 

Not protruding in lateral or in dorsal view? Dorsal view

- It was corrected.

 

recent

- It was corrected.

 

elongate

- It was corrected.

 

all femora?

- It was corrected.

 

stout?

Yes

 

slightly

- It was corrected.

 

Colour of body as a key feature to whole genus?

- It was corrected.

 

Very risky...

no, this is an additional character. The main character is the first.

 

This pair of feature is not fully differentiating

- It was corrected.

 

You cannot present the same feature in one couplets

- It was corrected.

 

slightly

- It was corrected.

 

Odontopus

- It was corrected.

 

Hyperini it is not a tribe within Entiminae. The key to Entiminae must be updated.

- This is a tribe according to the understanding of this subfamily Entiminae by the author.

 

Why not - similar to Hypera?

- It was corrected.

 

Phytonomus is an old synonym of Hypera, what have been mentioned in the brackets in the same line... See Catalogue of Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal

- It was corrected.

 

Probably lack a word. With two longitudinal...what?

- It was corrected.

 

Sparse or single.

 - It was corrected.

 

The word "rare" is related with of an event and/or situation

- It was corrected.

 

Too many "antennomeres" for me

- It was corrected.

 

Unnecessary. Sucinophyllobius was synonymized with Protonaupactus by Yunakov & Kirejtshuk (2011). Yunakov and Kirejtshuk 2011 (10.3897/zookeys.160.2108) gave a lot more characters than just shape of antennal club. Please discuss this synonymization more widely clumsy sentence.

- In the work of Yunakov & Kirejtshuk (2011) the only character for the separation of those genera is the shape of the club. There are no other characters.

 

Antennal scrobes lateral - sounds better together with next part of sentence

- It was corrected.

 

I have problem with interpretation of this sentence. Please write it more intelligible.

- It was corrected.

 

this is one of the most confusing descriptions in this paper. Too many repetitions and very similar  sentences mean, that the description, despite many exact details, is not well understood. Most of the description, especially the part about tentacles and feet, needs reworking

- It was corrected.

 

scales

- It was corrected.

 

Antennal scrobes lateral or  Scrobes lateral

- It was corrected.

 

I dont understand... 0.5 as long as eye? or  0.5 times longer than eye?

- It was corrected.

 

nothing surprising in platypodinae

- It was corrected.

 

lacinia?

- It was corrected.

 

nothing surprising in insects

- It was corrected.

 

mycetangia?

- It was corrected.

 

surface or level sounds better

- It was corrected.

 

contradiction, flat or convex, eventually slightly convex

- It was corrected.

 

two, distinct, long

- It was corrected.

 

according to cpc and many other publication Platypodidae is treated as a subfamily within Curculionidae

This name is a synonym of Platypodinae.

See http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=69438

It is subfamily within Curculionidae. If you disagree with a generally accepted classification, explain your point of view in detail in the Methodology

- This group is accepted by Legalov (2015, 2018) in the rank of a family. A link to my works with justification is given in Material and methods.

 

For me should be Hylesinini Scolytini

- These are subfamilies according to my interpretation.

 

Eyes simple, not emarginate. This feature without context of the next point does not make sense, but it should

- It was corrected.

 

Why? You should explain.

- It was corrected.

 

according to second feature should be "glabrous, without granules or teeth".

- It was corrected.

 

"Simple" means nothing

- It was corrected.

 

weak, irregular

- It was corrected.

 

weakly visible

- It was corrected.

 

weak, irregular

- It was corrected.

 

stark?

- It was corrected.

 

nine

- It was corrected.

 

Cimberidinae

- It was corrected.

 

recent

- It was corrected.

 

10

- It was corrected.

 

You probably have on mind the genus Involvulus, a valid name for Auletes.

- There are no name changes in the Palaearctic Catalogue (2017). Genus Auletes is one genus and Involvulus is another.

 

Probably you should add also Hyperinae, in this work incorrectly included in Entiminae

- No,  it is a tribe of the subfamily Entiminae.

 

genus name in italic

- It was corrected.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is an excellent example of a careful investigation on amber fossils. It contains spotless taxonomic descriptions and valuable morphological information. I recommend acceptance pending minor revision.

I have two more general and relevant comments: Since our zoological code of nomenclature prescribes the meaning of the endings of names in the family-group, it is redundant to write "the family XXidae" etc. And: Since the type species of all newly introduced genera bear patronyms (that are nouns in the genitive), it is strongly recommendable to state explicitly the grammatical gender of the new genus names. This is an important service to the taxonomic community, as subsequent authors and revisors can treat these names correctly as long as we have the mandatory gender agreement (articles 32.2 and 34.2 of the Code).

In addition, I found several incorrect Latin forms that I indicated on the attached pdf. As I am not a Native English speaker, my comments on the English can only be suggestions - I recommend to ask a Native Speaker for confirmation.

I do not insist in anonymity. The author is invited to contact me if he wishes.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the comments on my manuscript that allow to improved it. I corrected the manuscript according to the comments.

Corrections and answers:

I have two more general and relevant comments: Since our zoological code of nomenclature prescribes the meaning of the endings of names in the family-group, it is redundant to write "the family XXidae" etc. And: Since the type species of all newly introduced genera bear patronyms (that are nouns in the genitive), it is strongly recommendable to state explicitly the grammatical gender of the new genus names. This is an important service to the taxonomic community, as subsequent authors and revisors can treat these names correctly as long as we have the mandatory gender agreement (articles 32.2 and 34.2 of the Code).

- It was corrected.

 

In addition, I found several incorrect Latin forms that I indicated on the attached pdf. As I am not a Native English speaker, my comments on the English can only be suggestions - I recommend to ask a Native Speaker for confirmation.

-The manuscript was improved by Dr. G. Poinar.

I do not insist in anonymity. The author is invited to contact me if he wishes

 

since the suffix "-idae" clearly indicates that the name is one of a family, it is not necessary to write each time "the family"

- It was corrected.

 

please give a reference for the classification you adopted

- It was corrected.

 

spell out "nine"

- It was corrected.

 

whatever "primitive" means. I strongly recommend to avoid such a characterisation

- It was corrected.

 

the similarity ... are ... non-existent"? Better: There are practically no resemblances/similarities/overlaps between..."

- It was corrected.

 

please describe the difference

- It was corrected.

 

please state: gender "neutrum"

- It was corrected.

 

better: the first Old-World species of the genus ... If this new species really belongs to that genus, the latter is no longer "American"

- It was corrected.

 

WWII or "Second World War" or something to that effect, but not just "the war"

- It was corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

This contribution draws together a large amount of information on the weevil fossil inclusions described from European Eocene ambers. As such, it is a valuable review of the large and diverse weevil fauna known from these ambers. The illustrations provided are useful, however they could be improved by providing higher-quality photographs, additional photographs of diagnostic characters, and greater care in specimen preparation to maximise the visibility of specimens. *** Note that the taxonomic actions in this paper will require the paper and new names be registered in ZooBank prior to publication, in order for these names to be valid at the time of publication. *** Several species of weevil which are considered "common" finds in the amber have not been illustrated. These include *Palaeotanaos oisensis*, *Caulophilus sucinopunctatus*, *Succinostyphlus mroczkowskii* and *Taphramites gnathotrichus*. I recommend that specimens of these species be included to help readers be confident in their identifications if they use this work to identify specimens. Additionally, some of the other "common" species are illustarted by poor photographs in which the specimen is obscured. Examples include *Glaesotropis minor*, where the photographs of the type specimens (Figures 2a & 2b) have structures obscured by films of air. I recommend that additional photographs be provided of non-type specimens without these obstructions. Finally, for these species, I recommend that a "Material Examined" section be included, or some other indication of how many specimens are known in which institutions, to give the reader an idea as to how many specimens make a species "common". The introduction is fairly brief, and doesn't provide much in the way of the geological or geographic context of these finds. It would be very helpful to have some discussion of the three different amber "sites"---Baltic, Oise and Rovno---which provides background information on where these ambers are found, how they the ambers are found (e.g. mined/washed up on beaches/eroded from particular strata), the age estimates for these ambers and how they were estimated, as well as the inferred plant origin of the ambers. In addition, a discussion of amber taphonomy would be appropriate for a general review like this. A major recent work on amber weevil fossils has not been cited. I recommend that the author carefully reads Clarke et al 2018 (https://doi.org/10.3390/d11010001), and consider the methods for specimen preparation used in that study, and the wealth of illustrations included, particularly the detailed photographs of particular characters. Eugnomini. I have some knowledge about the extant eugnomine weevil taxa, so these fossils are of great interest to me. Based on the images provided, I do not believe that the species of *Archaeoeugnomus* are congeneric. - The head and rostrum of *A. barsevskis* disagrees very much with the eugnomine weevil taxa that I am familiar with. In particular, the short temples are an indication that this taxon should not be placed in the Eugnomini. The only character which suggests a placement in the tribe is the large metafemoral tooth; but this is present in a number of other curculionine weevil taxa. I recommend further consideration of the relationships of this taxon, potentially looking at Dorytomini, especially its affinities with *Dorytomus korotyaevi* (Figure 5e). - The peculiarities of *A. pilosum* are best recognised by being placed into its own genus. The combination of long rostrum, that is continuous with the head, attenuate antennal clubs, flattened body with a carina on elytra interstria (?)7, and long legs are all very unusual. I can accept a placement of this taxon in the Eugnomini, and it has certain similarities to *Stephanorhynchus* and *Callistomorphus*. - Likewise, I can accept a placement of *A. balticus* in the Eugnomini, with it having similarities to *Ancyttalia*, *Oreocalus* and other undescribed genera of New Zealand Eugnomini. However, I cannot see any reason why *Groehnius parvum* should be placed in a seperate species, let alone genus. The two taxa share many similarities in regards to elytral vestiture and sculpture, rostral structure, and antennal length and structure. I judge that the length of the scape as shown in the figures of *G. parvum* would be able to reach the anterior margin of the eye (the purported character to separate the two taxa, see line 1879), which makes me wary of the separation of this specimen into a different nominal taxa (I cannot see the femora of *G. parvum* to give my opinion on that character). Section 3.1, list of Curculionoidea. This list needs to be formatted better to make it easier to read. Indentations by rank will make it easier to read, and will make elements like the word "Genus" unnecessary. I recommend: Family Nemonychidae Subfamily Cimberinae Tribe Kuschelomacerini Kuschelomacer Riedel, 2010 K. kerneggeri Riedel, 2010 Family Anthribidae [Subfamily Urodontinae] Subfamily Anthribinae Tribe Oiserhinini Oiserhinus Legalov, Kirejtshuk et Nel, 2019 O. insolitus Legalov, Kirejtshuk et Nel, 2019 Tribe Mecocerini Pseudomecocerus Legalov, gen. nov. P. alekseevi Legalov, sp. nov. Line 89: Change "Cimberldinae" to "Cimberinae". Note that Shin et al (2017, http://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mxx324) recommends that the Cimberinae be elevated to full family status. Line 404: "Family Playpodidae". Note that it is pretty well established that the Scolytinae is most accurately ranked as a subfamily within the Curculionidae Line 411: "Family Scolytidae". Note that it is pretty well established that the Platypodinae is most accurately ranked as a subfamily within the Curculionidae Line 474: Key to families, couplet 3. "All five ventrites completely free." This character is not discussed in the alternative couplet. Line 479: Key to families, couplet 5. "Tibiae sometimes with mucro, without uncus." vs "Tibiae usually with uncus". I disagree that this character is useful for distinguishing between Nanophyinae and Curculionidae. Delete this character from this couplet. Line 483: Key to families, couplet 6. "Antennal scrobes absent. All five ventrites free." These characters are not discussed in the alternative couplet. Line 488: Key to families, couplet 7. "homonomous" This word is not particularly common, nor do I think it means what the author wants it to mean. I would replace this word with "of similar length". Line 504: Change "Urodontidnae" to "Urodontinae". Line 505: Key to Anthribidae subfamilies, couplet 1. Rearrange the characters in the second half of the couplet to be in the same order as the first half. Line 506: Change "somewhat" to "some". Line 508: Change "beak" to "rostrum". Line 562 and elsewhere: Change all instances of "anrennomere" to "antennomere". Line 584: Key to Allandrini "very long" vs "moderately elongate". The distinction between these alternatives is not clear to me, and is likely to be difficult to evaluate in a specimens without comparative material. Please clarify Line 597: "This species is known only by the holotype, which absent in the collection of PIN." This statement is unclear to me. Is the holotype supposed to be in PIN? Or is it supposed to be elsewhere? If the former, change to something like "This species is known only by the holotype, supposedly deposited in PIN. However, recent searches have not uncovered the specimen." If this is not the case, please clarify this sentence. Line 819: "This is a common species" How common? I would like to see some details about how many specimens are known in a few of the major collections. Line 945: "centrifugal" vs "centripetal". These descriptions of pronotal vestiture are unfamiliar to me. Please rephrase. Line 1565: Etymology. The derivation of *Electocossonus* refers to the prefix 'Baltic-' instead of 'Electo-' Also, note the spelling of the genus and confirm that this is not a lapsus of an intended "Electrocossonus" (amber-Cossonus) cf the current "chosen-Cossonus". Line 1649: *Caulophilus sucinopunctatus*. Please check the spelling of this name. Should it be "succinopunctatus"? Line 1738: Couplet 5. Both halves of the couplet have "Eyes convex". Make corrections to the state of the character, or remove this character from this couplet. Line 1860: I recommend including a photograph of a good specimen of *Succinostyplus mroczkowskii*, to help readers confirm any potential identifications of this species if they are using this work to identify specimens. Line 2908: "G. parvum sp. nov. holotype, FEH, no 649, laterally (k)"---The photograph referred to is a dorsal view of the specimen.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for his comments which improve my manuscript.

*** Note that the taxonomic actions in this paper will require the paper and new names be registered in ZooBank prior to publication, in order for these names to be valid at the time of publication.

- It corrected.

*** Several species of weevil which are considered "common" finds in the amber have not been illustrated. These include *Palaeotanaos oisensis*, *Caulophilus sucinopunctatus*, *Succinostyphlus mroczkowskii* and *Taphramites gnathotrichus*. I recommend that specimens of these species be included to help readers be confident in their identifications if they use this work to identify specimens. Additionally, some of the other "common" species are illustarted by poor photographs in which the specimen is obscured. Examples include *Glaesotropis minor*, where the photographs of the type specimens (Figures 2a & 2b) have structures obscured by films of air. I recommend that additional photographs be provided of non-type specimens without these obstructions. Finally, for these species, I recommend that a "Material Examined" section be included, or some other indication of how many specimens are known in which institutions, to give the reader an idea as to how many specimens make a species "common". The introduction is fairly brief, and doesn't provide much in the way of the geological or geographic context of these finds. It would be very helpful to have some discussion of the three different amber "sites"---Baltic, Oise and Rovno---which provides background information on where these ambers are found, how they the ambers are found (e.g. mined/washed up on beaches/eroded from particular strata), the age estimates for these ambers and how they were estimated, as well as the inferred plant origin of the ambers. In addition, a discussion of amber taphonomy would be appropriate for a general review like this. A major recent work on amber weevil fossils has not been cited. I recommend that the author carefully reads Clarke et al 2018 (https://doi.org/10.3390/d11010001), and consider the methods for specimen preparation used in that study, and the wealth of illustrations included, particularly the detailed photographs of particular characters.

- I added a characterization of these three locations. I am grateful for the publication of the recommendation that I read.

 

Eugnomini. I have some knowledge about the extant eugnomine weevil taxa, so these fossils are of great interest to me. Based on the images provided, I do not believe that the species of *Archaeoeugnomus* are congeneric. - The head and rostrum of *A. barsevskis* disagrees very much with the eugnomine weevil taxa that I am familiar with. In particular, the short temples are an indication that this taxon should not be placed in the Eugnomini. The only character which suggests a placement in the tribe is the large metafemoral tooth; but this is present in a number of other curculionine weevil taxa. I recommend further consideration of the relationships of this taxon, potentially looking at Dorytomini, especially its affinities with *Dorytomus korotyaevi* (Figure 5e).

- The boundaries between the tribes Anthonomini and Eugnomini are not entirely distinct. I characterize Eugnomini as beetles with enlarged 1st and 2nd ventrites and short 3rd and 4th ventrites, simple tibia (without uncus and mucro), elongated precoxal part of the prosternum, antennal scrobes oblique, directed toward rostrum base, and enlarged teeth on the metafemora.

- Antomnomini has a short precoxal part of prosternum (usually), approximately equal ventrites of the abdomen, tibiae with an uncus (as a rule), antennal scrobe directed to the eye (usually), enlarged forelegs with large teeth (often).

-A. barsevskisi has simple tibiae (nonuncinate) and 5th ventritis without anal setae, and cannot be closer to the genus Dorytomus. A. barsevskisi is characterized by enlarged 1st and 2nd ventrites and short 3rd and 4th ventrites, simple tibia, elongated precoxal part of the prosternum and enlarged teeth on the enlarged metafemora, and the antennal scrobe oblique.

 

The peculiarities of *A. pilosum* are best recognised by being placed into its own genus. The combination of long rostrum, that is continuous with the head, attenuate antennal clubs, flattened body with a carina on elytra interstria (?)7, and long legs are all very unusual. I can accept a placement of this taxon in the Eugnomini, and it has certain similarities to *Stephanorhynchus* and *Callistomorphus*.

- It corrected.

Likewise, I can accept a placement of *A. balticus* in the Eugnomini, with it having similarities to *Ancyttalia*, *Oreocalus* and other undescribed genera of New Zealand Eugnomini.

 

However, I cannot see any reason why *Groehnius parvum* should be placed in a seperate species, let alone genus. The two taxa share many similarities in regards to elytral vestiture and sculpture, rostral structure, and antennal length and structure. I judge that the length of the scape as shown in the figures of *G. parvum* would be able to reach the anterior margin of the eye (the purported character to separate the two taxa, see line 1879), which makes me wary of the separation of this specimen into a different nominal taxa (I cannot see the femora of *G. parvum*to give my opinion on that character).

- Yes, its are similar species, but I think that the characteristics given in the key allow us to consider them as different species.

 

Section 3.1, list of Curculionoidea. This list needs to be formatted better to make it easier to read. Indentations by rank will make it easier to read, and will make elements like the word "Genus" unnecessary. I recommend: Family Nemonychidae Subfamily Cimberinae Tribe Kuschelomacerini Kuschelomacer Riedel, 2010 K. kerneggeri Riedel, 2010 Family Anthribidae [Subfamily Urodontinae] Subfamily Anthribinae Tribe Oiserhinini Oiserhinus Legalov, Kirejtshuk et Nel, 2019 O. insolitus Legalov, Kirejtshuk et Nel, 2019 Tribe Mecocerini Pseudomecocerus Legalov, gen. nov. P. alekseevi Legalov, sp. nov.

- corrected in the table as directed by another reviewer.

Line 89: Change "Cimberldinae" to "Cimberinae". Note that Shin et al (2017, http://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mxx324) recommends that the Cimberinae be elevated to full family status.

- corrected at the direction of another reviewer. I shown (Gratshev, Legalov, 2014) that Nemonychidae forms two lines - Nemonychinae+ Cretonemonychinae and the ohers, but I see no reason to separate the them into two families.

Line 404: "Family Playpodidae". Note that it is pretty well established that the Scolytinae is most accurately ranked as a subfamily within the Curculionidae. and Line 411: "Family Scolytidae". Note that it is pretty well established that the Platypodinae is most accurately ranked as a subfamily within the Curculionidae

- I cannot accept the comments of the reviewer, because I consider Platypodidae and Scolytidae as independent families. I have written about this in the methodology with links to my works, where I discuss this question.

 

Line 474: Key to families, couplet 3. "All five ventrites completely free." This character is not discussed in the alternative couplet.

- corrected at the direction of another reviewer.

 

Line 479: Key to families, couplet 5. "Tibiae sometimes with mucro, without uncus." vs "Tibiae usually with uncus". I disagree that this character is useful for distinguishing between Nanophyinae and Curculionidae. Delete this character from this couplet.

-I reformulated these characters as directed by another reviewer.

 

Line 483: Key to families, couplet 6. "Antennal scrobes absent. All five ventrites free." These characters are not discussed in the alternative couplet.

- corrected at the direction of another reviewer.

 

Line 488: Key to families, couplet 7. "homonomous" This word is not particularly common, nor do I think it means what the author wants it to mean. I would replace this word with "of similar length".

- It corrected.

 

Line 504: Change "Urodontidnae" to "Urodontinae".

-It corrected.

Line 505: Key to Anthribidae subfamilies, couplet 1. Rearrange the characters in the second half of the couplet to be in the same order as the first half.

-It corrected.

 

Line 506: Change "somewhat" to "some".

-It corrected

 

Line 508: Change "beak" to "rostrum".

- It corrected

 

Line 562 and elsewhere: Change all instances of "anrennomere" to "antennomere".

- corrected at the direction of another reviewer.

 

Line 584: Key to Allandrini "very long" vs "moderately elongate". The distinction between these alternatives is not clear to me, and is likely to be difficult to evaluate in a specimens without comparative material. Please clarify

-It corrected.

 

Line 597: "This species is known only by the holotype, which absent in the collection of PIN." This statement is unclear to me. Is the holotype supposed to be in PIN? Or is it supposed to be elsewhere? If the former, change to something like "This species is known only by the holotype, supposedly deposited in PIN. However, recent searches have not uncovered the specimen." If this is not the case, please clarify this sentence.

- It corrected. The types were kept in the PIN and were given to someone for study. Unfortunately, after the sudden death of V. Zherikhin, it is not known where them are.

 

Line 819: "This is a common species" How common? I would like to see some details about how many specimens are known in a few of the major collections.

- It corrected.

Line 945: "centrifugal" vs "centripetal". These descriptions of pronotal vestiture are unfamiliar to me. Please rephrase.

- It corrected.

 

Line 1565: Etymology. The derivation of *Electocossonus* refers to the prefix 'Baltic-' instead of 'Electo-' Also, note the spelling of the genus and confirm that this is not a lapsus of an intended "Electrocossonus" (amber-Cossonus) cf the current "chosen-Cossonus".

- It corrected.

 

Line 1649: *Caulophilus sucinopunctatus*. Please check the spelling of this name. Should it be "succinopunctatus"? “

- This is the correct spelling.

 

Line 1738: Couplet 5. Both halves of the couplet have "Eyes convex". Make corrections to the state of the character, or remove this character from this couplet.

- corrected at the direction of another reviewer.

 

Line 1860: I recommend including a photograph of a good specimen of *Succinostyplus mroczkowskii*, to help readers confirm any potential identifications of this species if they are using this work to identify specimens.

- It corrected.

 

Line 2908: "G. parvum sp. nov. holotype, FEH, no 649, laterally (k)"---The photograph referred to is a dorsal view of the specimen. 

-It corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see attached text.

Comments for author File: Comments.txt

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the comments on my manuscript that allow to improved it. I corrected the manuscript according to the comments.

Corrections and answers:

Introduction

 

lines 26-28: just a common and standard introduction phrase with no important information. Many groups of insects possess complex 'ecological confinement' and 'trophic links' so that all of them are 'convenient'. Complex taxonomical structure is not the best argument. It is recommended to avoid such a common phrases and write something more informative.

- It was corrected.

Lines 33 and 34: Phrases 'Oise amber ...' and 'They provided ...' can easily be combined.

- It was corrected.

 

Line 35: 'In 2019, a review ...' - delete comma.

- It was corrected.

 

Lines 37, 38: 'The first Curculionoidea ...', 'The second specimen ...' - species or specimen of the same species Hylesinites electrinus Germar, 1813? According to this logic there should follow 'The third species/specimens ...' and so on.

- It was corrected.

 

Line 39: 'according to this brief description, ...' which this? Shortly, all the the text from lines 37-41 should be re-written. Phrases 'A review of Baltic amber...' and 'This is still ...' can easily be combined.

- It was corrected.

 

Lines 43-46 should be re-written: phrases are too short and many of them could be combined. it is styllistically very far from satisfactory state.

- It was corrected.

 

Line 47: the phrase with no sence.

- It was corrected.

Lines 87-457: hopefully this list will be formatted somehow with indentations and so on. The list itself can be replaced by a table providing much more useful information (see comments below).

- It was corrected.

 

Discussion

Lines 2975, 2976: too many commas and some out of their places.

- It was corrected.

 

Lines 2977-2981: should be re-written: phrases are too short and many of them could be combined (e.g. 'The family Nemonychidae...' and 'It is rare in amber...').

- It was corrected.

The information in Discussion is highly recommended:

to present in the table version: presence in an amber, number of records, literature, plant association and so on for every family, subfamily and tribe of Curculionoidea in question),

- It was corrected.

to present the information also in charts (diagrams): shares of every family, subfamily (?tribes) in European ambers, comparison with faunas of Curculionoidea from other ambers and so on. It was corrected.

 

The manuscript was improved by Dr. G. Poinar.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been greatly improved.

But still I have some minor corrections:

1) line 668, 755 and 1483 - is Gender "neutrum", should be Gender neuter. See Nicolson D.H. 1986. Species Epithets and Gender Information. Taxon, 35(2): 323-328.

2) Table 1 - Table heading should include the word in the singular, not plural. Family - not Families, Tribe - not Tribes, Genus - not Genera etc.

The table description should explain abbreviations used in the "Localities" column (BalJ etc.), not as "remarks" at the end of the table. 

The columns are narrow so the aligning looks not very good, it is better to align it to the left (see the list of species with large spaces between the genus abbreviation and the species name)

The manuscript can be accepted after included mentioned amendments.

 

 

 

Author Response

I sincerely thank the reviewer for his comments.

But still I have some minor corrections:

1) line 668, 755 and 1483 - is Gender "neutrum", should be Gender neuter. See Nicolson D.H. 1986. Species Epithets and Gender Information. Taxon, 35(2): 323-328.

- It corrected.

2) Table 1 - Table heading should include the word in the singular, not plural. Family - not Families, Tribe - not Tribes, Genus - not Genera etc. - It corrected.

The table description should explain abbreviations used in the "Localities" column (BalJ etc.), not as "remarks" at the end of the table. 

- It corrected.

The columns are narrow so the aligning looks not very good, it is better to align it to the left (see the list of species with large spaces between the genus abbreviation and the species name)

- It corrected.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf