Redescription of Stolephorus ronquilloi Wongratana, 1983 and Description of Stolephorus hindustanensis, a New Anchovy from the Western Coast of India (Teleostei: Clupeiformes: Engraulidae)â€
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Stolphorus hindustanensis is the newly described species and S. ronquilloi is a re-description. The authors should describe S. hindustanensis first and deal with S. ronquilloi later. In addition to comparing this two species, the authors should compare the new species S. hindustanensis with all its congenus, and list the characters that can be used for diagnosis.
Minor points:
1. Table 1, typo in Gill rakers on 2nd gill arch (upper) of Stolephorus hindustanensis, 13-5 should be 13-15?
2. Table 1, typo in modes and sd of pseudobranchial filaments of stolephorus ronquilloi, 16, 17±5?
3. Please highlight non-overlapping counting and measurement data between S. hindustanensis and S. ronquilloi in the tables.
Author Response
(same as the attached word file) Dear Reviewer 1,
We really thank you for your valuable comments. We revised the manuscript following your advices. Please confirm the responses for each your comment.
Sincerely yours,
Harutaka Hata
Harutaka Hata Ph D.
Center for Molecular Biodiversity Research
National Museum of Nature and Science,
4-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0005, Japan
TEL: +81-29-853-8153
FAX: +81-29-853-8998
Our responses for reviewer’s comments are marked in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Stolphorus hindustanensis is the newly described species and S. ronquilloi is a re-description. The authors should describe S. hindustanensis first and deal with S. ronquilloi later. In addition to comparing this two species, the authors should compare the new species S. hindustanensis with all its congenus, and list the characters that can be used for diagnosis.
Thank you for pointing. Firstly, we defined S. ronquilloi, previously lacking detailed morphological knowledges and subsequently the new species is described. Therefore, we did not change the arrangements of the species in the manuscript.
Characters stated in “Comparisons” of S. ronquilloi (indented preopercle; colorations; lacking predorsal scute; position of anal-fin origin, etc.) can distinguish S. ronquilloi and all other congeners except for S. hindustanensis. Therefore, comparing S. hindustanensis with congeners except for S. ronquilloi was not repeated in the Remarks of S. hindustanensis.
- Table 1, typo in Gill rakers on 2nd gill arch (upper) of Stolephorus hindustanensis, 13-5 should be 13-15?
Thank you for pointing. “13–5” was revised as 13–15.
- Table 1, typo in modes and sd of pseudobranchial filaments of stolephorus ronquilloi, 16, 17±5?
Thank you for pointing. The modes are 16 and 17. So, we deleted the SD.
- Please highlight non-overlapping counting and measurement data between S. hindustanensis and S. ronquilloi in the tables.
Thank you for suggestion. Non-overlapping characters are shown in bold in the tables.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript provides the description of a new and interesting species. I believe it may be improved with some changes and addition of figures. Please find below my comments and suggestions.
--
Introduction section.
General comment. Why redescribed Stolephorus ronquilloi? The original description is not available or is insufficient to determine the species? Just the similarity with the new species is not enough to justify a redescription. A better explanation should be provided in Introduction sections and the differences of Stolephorus ronquilloi pointed in Remarks section.
Results
“Stolephorus ronquilloi Wongratana, 1983: 399, fig. 17 (type locality: Manila Bay, Luzon, 67 Philippines; paratype localities: Mindanao and Luzon, Philippines); Wongratana 1987: 8 68 (Philippines); Whitehead et al. 1988: 418, unnumbered fig. (Philippines); Wongratana et 69 al. 1999, 1740, unnumbered fig. (Philippines); Hata et al. 2020b: 10 (Manila Bay, Philip-70 pines); Hata and Motomura 2020: 11 (Philippines). Stolephorus ronquilloi Wongratana, 1983: 399, fig. 17 (type locality: Manila Bay, Luzon, 67 Philippines; paratype localities: Mindanao and Luzon, Philippines); Wongratana 1987: 8 68 (Philippines); Whitehead et al. 1988: 418, unnumbered fig. (Philippines); Wongratana et 69 al. 1999, 1740, unnumbered fig. (Philippines); Hata et al. 2020b: 10 (Manila Bay, Philip-70 pines); Hata and Motomura 2020: 11 (Philippines).”
This list should be better detailed.
“Comparisons.” Is the Diagnosis?
Stolephorus hindustanensis n. sp.
“Stolephorus insularis (not of Delsman): Whitehead et al. 1988 (in part): 413 (northwest-161 ern part of India).”
There are additional mentions in the literature?
“Diagnosis.”
Diagnosis should provide differences from other species. For example, differ from Stolephorus ronquilloi by have.....
"Distribution."
A map with distribution including the new species plus its congener, Stolephorus ronquilloi, is very important. Please consider add that figure.
"However, the new species differs from S. ronquilloi in having lower..."
Seems "lost" from a context. Please rewrite.
Author Response
(Same as the attached word file) Dear Reviewer 2,
We really thank you for your valuable comments. We revised the manuscript following your advices. Please confirm the responses for each your comment.
Sincerely yours,
Harutaka Hata
Harutaka Hata Ph D.
Center for Molecular Biodiversity Research
National Museum of Nature and Science,
4-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0005, Japan
TEL: +81-29-853-8153
FAX: +81-29-853-8998
Our responses for reviewer’s comments are marked in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
The manuscript provides the description of a new and interesting species. I believe it may be improved with some changes and addition of figures. Please find below my comments and suggestions.
Introduction section.
General comment. Why redescribed Stolephorus ronquilloi? The original description is not available or is insufficient to determine the species? Just the similarity with the new species is not enough to justify a redescription. A better explanation should be provided in Introduction sections and the differences of Stolephorus ronquilloi pointed in Remarks section.
Thank you for suggestion. Stolephorus ronquilloi has never been described from the original description. Therefore, we re-described the species. We explained it in the Introduction.
Results
“Stolephorus ronquilloi Wongratana, 1983: 399, fig. 17 (type locality: Manila Bay, Luzon, Philippines; paratype localities: Mindanao and Luzon, Philippines); Wongratana 1987: 8 (Philippines); Whitehead et al. 1988: 418, unnumbered fig. (Philippines); Wongratana et al. 1999, 1740, unnumbered fig. (Philippines); Hata et al. 2020b: 10 (Manila Bay, Philippines); Hata and Motomura 2020: 11 (Philippines). Stolephorus ronquilloi Wongratana, 1983: 399, fig. 17 (type locality: Manila Bay, Luzon, Philippines; paratype localities: Mindanao and Luzon, Philippines); Wongratana 1987: 8 (Philippines); Whitehead et al. 1988: 418, unnumbered fig. (Philippines); Wongratana et al. 1999, 1740, unnumbered fig. (Philippines); Hata et al. 2020b: 10 (Manila Bay, Philippines); Hata and Motomura 2020: 11 (Philippines).”
This list should be better detailed.
Thank you for suggestion. We added the detailed explanations of the studies shown in the synonym list in “Remarks.”
“Comparisons.” Is the Diagnosis?
Sorry, we newly added “Diagnosis” of S. ronquilloi.
Stolephorus hindustanensis n. sp.
“Stolephorus insularis (not of Delsman): Whitehead et al. 1988 (in part): 413 (northwest-161 ern part of India).”
There are additional mentions in the literature?
Thank you for pointing. We added the explanation in the remarks of the new species.
“Diagnosis.”
Diagnosis should provide differences from other species. For example, differ from Stolephorus ronquilloi by have.....
We gave the comparisons of the new species with the congeners in “Comparisons”
"Distribution."
A map with distribution including the new species plus its congener, Stolephorus ronquilloi, is very important. Please consider add that figure.
Thank you for suggestion. We added the map showing the distribution range of these species.
"However, the new species differs from S. ronquilloi in having lower..."
Seems "lost" from a context. Please rewrite.
Thank you for pointing. We removed the line feed on the beginning of the sentence. And, “However” was changed as “Moreover”.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest change the title to "Redescription of Stolephorus ronquilloi Wongratana, 1983 (Teleostei: Clupeiformes: Engraulidae) and description of Stolephorus hindustanensis, a new anchovy from the western coast of India and ".
Author Response
(same as the uploaded word file)
Dear Reviewer 1,
We really thank you for your valuable comments. We revised the manuscript following your advices. Please confirm the responses for each your comment.
Sincerely yours,
Harutaka Hata
Harutaka Hata Ph D.
Center for Molecular Biodiversity Research
National Museum of Nature and Science,
4-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0005, Japan
TEL: +81-29-853-8153
FAX: +81-29-853-8998
Our responses for reviewer’s comments are marked in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I suggest change the title to "Redescription of Stolephorus ronquilloi Wongratana, 1983 (Teleostei: Clupeiformes: Engraulidae) and description of Stolephorus hindustanensis, a new anchovy from the western coast of India and ".
Thank you for suggestion. The title was changed generally following your comment, but “(Teleostei: Clupeiformes: Engraulidae)” is placed at the end.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear,
Now the manuscritp is ok.
Best,
Author Response
(same as the uploaded word file)
Dear Reviewer 2,
We really thank you for your valuable comments. We revised the manuscript following your advices. Please confirm the responses for each your comment.
Sincerely yours,
Harutaka Hata
Harutaka Hata Ph D.
Center for Molecular Biodiversity Research
National Museum of Nature and Science,
4-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0005, Japan
TEL: +81-29-853-8153
FAX: +81-29-853-8998
Our responses for reviewer’s comments are marked in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear,
Now the manuscritp is ok.
Best,
Thank you so much for reviewing the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
