Next Article in Journal
Two Strains of Lentinula edodes Differ in Their Transcriptional and Metabolic Patterns and Respond Differently to Thermostress
Next Article in Special Issue
Plant-Associated Novel Didymellaceous Taxa in the South China Botanical Garden (Guangzhou, China)
Previous Article in Journal
The Chromosome-Scale Genomes of Exserohilum rostratum and Bipolaris zeicola Pathogenic Fungi Causing Rice Spikelet Rot Disease
Previous Article in Special Issue
Deep Genotypic Species Delimitation of Aspergillus Section Flavi Isolated from Brazilian Foodstuffs and the Description of Aspergillus annui sp. nov. and Aspergillus saccharicola sp. nov.
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Novelties in Microthyriaceae (Microthyriales): Two New Asexual Genera with Three New Species from Freshwater Habitats in Guizhou Province, China

J. Fungi 2023, 9(2), 178; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9020178
by Lingling Liu 1,2, Jing Yang 2,3, Si Zhou 4, Xiaofeng Gu 1, Jiulan Gou 1, Quanquan Wei 1, Meng Zhang 1 and Zuoyi Liu 2,*
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
J. Fungi 2023, 9(2), 178; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9020178
Submission received: 23 December 2022 / Revised: 17 January 2023 / Accepted: 24 January 2023 / Published: 28 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ascomycota: Diversity, Taxonomy and Phylogeny)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written and the information is complete, clear and straightforward in material and methods. The illustrations are very good and sufficient to understand the morphology of each species.

In the attached file there are minor formatting corrections.

However, I had some doubts regarding the differentiation of the two species of Paramirandina (observation number 2 below).

 

1) It was not clear to me why Pseudocorniculariella guizhouensis needs additional collections and further molecular evidence to confirm its taxonomy. (lines 316-317 and 393-394).

2) I am not so convinced that Paramirandina cymbiformis and P. aquatica are different species. Support in phylogenetic analysis is low (87/0.98/90) and morphological difference is questionable (size of conidiophore and solitary conidia in P. cymbiformis).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The revisions responsed to you are indicated as bright blue. The revisions responsed to editor are indicated as bright yellow

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper. Two new genera and three new species were introduced in this study. The descriptions of the new taxa were overall good. However, there are still some deficiencies. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. I suggest including the related genera (Lichenopeltella, Nothoanungitopsis, Pseudomicrothyrium, Scolecopeltidium, Seynesiella, Neoscolecobasidium, Parazalerion, Pseudosoloacrosporiella) in the phylogentic tree.

2. I suggest marking the Microthyriaceae clade on the phylogenetic tree.

3. I suggest marking the clades of different genera in Microthyriaceae on the phylogenetic tree.

4. I would like the see the morphological comparison of Paramirandina to Pleurothecium,Pleurotheciella, which are two typical genera of freshwater anamorphic genera.

5. There are many writing probems, for examples:

Line 18:from the wetlands.

Line 158: The new taxa are in bold and rad   rad - red.

Line 178-179: Repetitive expression

Author Response

The revisions are indicated as red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

it is a very good writing paper and well organized, if the authors can improve their English editing would be much better for readers.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The revisions responsed to you are indicated as bright green. The revisions responsed to editor are indicated as bright yellow

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No more comments

Back to TopTop