Notes on the Ecology and Distribution of Species of the Genera of Bondarzewiaceae (Russulales and Basidiomycota) with an Emphasis on Amylosporus
, Moza Al-Kharousi 2, Dua’a Al-Maqbali 2, Arwa A. Al-Owaisi 2, Rethinasamy Velazhahan 1, Abdullah M. Al-Sadi 1,3,* and Mohamed N. Al-Yahya’ei 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is a good contribution, the methodology of the molecular is very good, only clarifications should be made in the description and the taxonomic key that should be reviewed because the couplets do not match. Improved englisch in some paragraphs.
Check the manuscript
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The paper is a good contribution, the methodology of the molecular is very good, only clarifications should be made in the description and the taxonomic key that should be reviewed because the couplets do not match. Improved English in some paragraphs.
Response: We greatly appreciate the efforts of the reviewer for thoroughly reviewing the manuscript. We incorporated the reviewer suggestion in the revised version. Regarding the format for the description of the new species, Amylosporus is a polypore genus, we followed standard species description of polypore fungi.
Comments: It is recommended ‘Notes on ecology and distribution of species of the genera of Bondarzewiaceae (Russulales, Basidiomycota) with emphasis on Amylosporus’.
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for suggesting a title, we changed the title of manuscript in the revised version as “Notes on ecology and distribution of species of the genera of Bondarzewiaceae (Russulales, Basidiomycota) with emphasis on Amylosporus”.
Comments Page3, Line 109: It is recommended to follow this sequence in the description!
Response: For the species description of polypore fungi, we followed the standard style of description. I think the reviewer may think the description format about gilled mushrooms. In that the reviewer is right, the description of gilled mushrooms start with morphological description of basidiomata, followed by microscopic characterization of basidiospores, basidia, cystidia, hyphae in the pileus and stipe tissues, etc.
Comments Page3, Figure1: It is recommended to include geographical coordinates of the area.
Response: We added the geographical coordinates of the study area, Page 3, Figure1.
Comments Page5: review the template format.
Response: We carefully fixed the format issue in the revised version. Thanks.
Comments Page8, Line208: Please review in the abstract, you said that the family Bondarzewiaceae was diversified 140 mya and here 114 mya.
Response: In abstract and discussion section, the age of diversification of Bondarzewiaceae is 114.
Comments Page16, Line490: It is recommended to add diagnostic characters of each genera.
Response: In the revised version of the manuscript, we added some key characters of each genera.
Comments Page18, Line592: When addressing various aspects of Bondarzewiaceae in the discussion, it is recommended to include conclusions indicating the contribution and what the status of the family is after this study.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion, we added a conclusion.
Reviewer 2 Report
1.Wrightoporia is still polyphyletic. Based on morphological characteristics and systematic considerations, can Wrightoporia be established as a new genus or a new section under Amylosporus? Please consider this, authors.
2.Amylosporus sect. Amylosporus is the autonymic group of the genus, without adding an author citation. It does not constitute a new section; rather, when another new section is established, the autonymic group where the type species resides automatically forms, as detailed in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.
1.Wrightoporia is still polyphyletic. Based on morphological characteristics and systematic considerations, can Wrightoporia be established as a new genus or a new section under Amylosporus? Please consider this, authors.
2.Amylosporus sect. Amylosporus is the autonymic group of the genus, without adding an author citation. It does not constitute a new section; rather, when another new section is established, the autonymic group where the type species resides automatically forms, as detailed in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.
3.Some descriptions in the key are a bit redundant; I suggest revising them.
4.The usage of tef1-α in tree construction is not clearly stated in the text; please clarify and make the necessary amendments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment 1. Wrightoporia is still polyphyletic. Based on morphological characteristics and systematic considerations, can Wrightoporia be established as a new genus or a new section under Amylosporus? Please consider this, authors.
Response: Wrightoporia is polyphyletic, one species W. austrosinensis is phylogenetically more similar to Amylosporus than Wrightophoria. Perhaps, Wrightoporia austrosinensis could be an independent genus. However, at this stage, with certainty, we cannot treated it under Amylosporus, nor a new genus, because, sequence data for all the known species of both Wrightoporia and Amylosporus are not available.
Comment 2. Amylosporus sect. Amylosporus is the autonymic group of the genus, without adding an author citation. It does not constitute a new section; rather, when another new section is established, the autonymic group where the type species resides automatically forms, as detailed in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.
Response: Thank you for the correction, we deleted the authority from Amylosporus sect. Amylosporus and MycoBank no as well.
Comment 3. Some descriptions in the key are a bit redundant; I suggest revising them.
Response: Thank for the suggestions, we carefully revised the key.
Comment 4. The usage of tef1-α in tree construction is not clearly stated in the text; please clarify and make the necessary amendments.
Response: Only ITS and 28S sequence data are available (in GenBank) for most species in Bondarzewiaceae, therefore, we employed the sequences of these two region to address the phylogeny of the family. We mentioned the tef1-α accessions for the new species, which might be used as reference in future phylogenetic studies of Amylosporus or Bondarzewiaceae.
Comment on figure4. The systematic position does indeed support the establishment of a new genus or a new section under Amylosporus. Resolving this issue would further enrich the content of the article.
Response: Wrightoporia austrosinensis is phylogenetically more similar to Amylosporus than Wrightophoria. Perhaps, Wrightoporia austrosinensis could be an independent genus. However, at this stage, with certainty, we cannot treated this species either under Amylosporus, nor a new genus, because, sequence data for all the known species of both Wrightoporia and Amylosporus are not available.
