Five New Species of Aureoboletus and Chalciporus (Boletaceae, Boletales) and Their Ethnomycological Aspects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describe five new speceis of Aureoboletus and Chalciporus from Mexico based on morphology together with molecular data. The manuscript presented well and I think it is suitable to publish in JOF. Some minor corrections are noted.

1. Protein coding genes/sequences should be italicized.

2. Xerocomus aff. subtomentosusHKAS58865, here aff. should not be italicized. and put a space after speceis name.

3. Genus or species name(s) should be italicized.

4. In reference, no. 3, Hosen, Md. I. should be Hosen, M.I.

5. In reference, no. 4, Journal name Mycokeys should be MycoKeys.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable review. Please see the attached file where we answer point-by-point your specific corrections and comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript reported five new species of the genus Aereoboletus and Chalciporus from Mexico by using macro- micromorphological and phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequence from multi-gene analyses based on ITS, LSU, RPB1, RPB2 and TEF1. The key of these two genera also are given. The description is reasonable and studying methods are standardized. Recent literature are also cited. The results are reliable. However, there are some minor mistakes as following which marked with yellow:

1. Line 21-22, the economic value of edible fungal specie are important income for common people. It is not necessary to mention they are the livelihood for low-income people specially. This has little to do with the theme of this paper.

2. Line 27, there are two blank spaces in A. readii.

3. Line 53, literature citations is unreasonable sequence and 12 should be in front of 14.

4. Line 62, Abies should be in italic type.   

5. Line 64-66, what’s the aim and significance of this study?

6. Line 197, 210, 219, the new species are suggested in bold type for striking.

7. In the description of A. readii, the subheading of “Habit, habitat and distribution” and “notes” should be in bold type and keep the consistent with previous species description.

8. Line 407, the genera name need to be in italic type.

9. In the discussion, the first paragraph is redundant. The edible value about these five new species should be added.

10. In addition, the studying currant condition about these two genus in Mexico, including how many species, should be written in introduction. This is this research background.

11. There are some mistake about the reference.

In all, this manuscript is suitable for publishing in JoF after correction and the results can promote the acknowledge about the genus.

In a whole, the English langeage of this paper are good.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable review. Please see the attached file where we answer point-by-point your specific corrections and comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript the authors describe 5 new Boletaceae species from Mexico. This paper is relevant for the mycological community, the descriptions are sound and a good contribution to document the biodiversity of Mexico.

 

Some improvements are suggested below:

Major comment:

In the description of A. ayuukkii, the authors mention the amyloid basidiospores. This character is not common in Boletaceae and might warrant special mentioning, even in the keys.

 

Suggestion: The terms ethnomycology, ethnomycological are well established in the literature and might be more adequate than "biocultural importance"

Line 26: Aureoboletus (spelling)

Line 33: the keywords should be revised: "biodiversity", "edible" are not very meaningful for finding the content. I suggest to include Chalciporus, Aureoboletus, Mexico; maybe also "ethnomycology"

 

 

Line 78: At least 30 cystidia...

 

Line 231: Figs. 2, 5

Line 250: Surface furfuraceous to distinctly longitudinally streaked. Basal mycelium ....

268: Without clamp connections

321: Melzer's solution

 

395: .... has a glabrous, pinkish to pinkish red or pinkish pileus surface.... [Note: I noticed this grammatical error a few times in the manuscript, including the keys. Please correct "surface pileus", "surface stipe", etc to either "pileus surface" or "surface of stipe", etc ]

407: Is the genus decription of Chalciporus provided by the authors or based on a citation?

 

461: Without odor

 

585: ...biodiversity of Mexican Boletaceae taxa...

Please review the manuscript for "surface stipe", "surface pileus". See my note for Line 395.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable review. Please see the attached file where we answer point-by-point your specific corrections and comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors,

I am writing to submit my review of the research article titled "Five new species of Aureoboletus and Chalciporus (Boletaceae, Boletales) and biocultural importance" which was recently submitted in Journal of Fungi (Manuscript ID: 2639128). I'm pleased to have the opportunity to evaluate this paper and wish to offer my insights regarding its content, methodology, and its appropriateness for publication in your respected Journal.

The study presented in this article is both interesting and important, with focus on the diverse Boletaceae family within the Boletales group, known for its ecological importance and economic value as a food source. The study is centered in Mexico, an area with limited prior research on Boletaceae. The authors employ a comprehensive approach, combining macro- and micromorphological analysis with DNA sequencing from multiple genes. Their work leads to the discovery of five new species in the Aereoboletus and Chalciporus genera. The manuscript also explores the cultural significance of one species within the Tlahuica-Pjiekajoo culture. Visual aids, including photographs and drawings, accompany detailed species descriptions. In summary, the manuscript significantly contributes to our understanding of Boletaceae in an under-studied region and highlights their biocultural importance.

I found that the MS is well-structured, with clear objectives and a logical flow of information. The authors have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the subject matter and have meticulously used a wide range of literature sources.

However, there is a need for a small improvement in some parts of the manuscript.

These include:

Abstract:

Line 21: Maybe you should replace “Many species” with “Some of them” or you should write which species specifically are used as food...

Lines 23-24: Could you add this sentence (In Mexico, the Boletaceae family boasts a substantial number of species, yet our understanding of these species remains far from comprehensive.) instead of your sentence from these lines?

Lines 29-30: Could you please delete this sentence: “Photographs, drawings, and a description of the new species are presented.” Abstract of the MS is just short overview with the most important information about your paper.

Keywords:

Line 33: Could you add more keywords? They are important for visibility of your paper

Introduction:

Line 39: Please delete “)” after “[5, 6]”.

Results:

Figure 5:

Could you provide information about photography credits?

Line 407: Please use italic font for writing of names of genera: Chalciporus

References:

I suggest you that you should delete doi numbers from references if you don’t have them for all references.

I believe that with these suggestions, the manuscript will be ready for the second revision and for publication in JoF after that.

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to review this article, and I believe that it has the potential to make a valuable contribution to your journal, after minor revision. I look forward to seeing the revised version of the manuscript and would be happy to review it again once the necessary changes have been made.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable review. Please see the attached file where we answer point-by-point your specific corrections and comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf