Curvature Analysis in Seed Surface of SEM Images of Silene Species from Türkiye

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, follow all comments stated all over the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Accepted

Author Response

Comments: Please, follow all comments stated all over the manuscript.

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

The names of Silene species have been revised with POWO and corrected where appropriate. In the case of S. anatolica Melzheimer & A. Baytop, this species is very similar to Silene cserei. In the Flora of the Caucasus (Takhtajan, 2012), S. anatolica is given as a synonym of the S. cserei. However, S. cserei and S. anatolica are different species in terms of characteristics such as base and stem leaf sizes, calyx veining, and anthophore length. Therefore, the species S. anatolica is not a synonym for the species S. cserei, and both are separate species. This has been indicated now in the footer to Table 1.

Silene reinwardtii is a synonym of S. portensis subsp. rigidula, and as been corrected through the article.

All the comments indicated in the PDF version have been considered and the corrections made.

On behalf of the authors,

Emilio Cervantes

Corresponding author

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The ms represents interesting outcomes on seed morphometrics in the genus Silene, which could be interesting for a wide audience of readers. However, it is written inaccurately and loosely, with some irrelevant phrases and even paragraphs. The ms should be precisely cleared and rewritten at some points. At the same time, I have doubt whether this ms is suitable for the journal Taxonomy since it is rather morphological work with some quite moderate taxonomic approach. Please see my other comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In some points, inappropriate or incorrect words and terms are applied. Some sentences are hard to understand and require spelling revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Comments 1: The ms represents interesting outcomes on seed morphometrics in the genus Silene, which could be interesting for a wide audience of readers. However, it is written inaccurately and loosely, with some irrelevant phrases and even paragraphs. The ms should be precisely cleared and rewritten at some points.

Response 1: 

The text has been revised and corrected according to your indications in the PDF annex. A Postal index is now indicated for all the authors. Key words were changed and many sentences were modified or re-written. A DOI was given in the reference section for each article cited as suggested. 

On behalf of the authors,

 

Emilio Cervantes

Corresponding author

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study conducted is valuable and the results obtained will contribute to the literature. 

It can be published after the corrections and additions mentioned below are made.

A lot of data has been obtained, but the study can become even more valuable with some additional analysis such as cluster analysis  (if possible). 

Three different magnifications were used for the SEM in the material and method, but only one of them was mentioned in the study. The other two enlargement-related parts can be removed.

 

There are 100 species written in the abstract, but it is stated as 120 in the materials and methods. Update the correct one.

Explain in detail why sem was made in only 40 species. Please explain in detail why those 40 species were chosen and according to which characteristics they were determined.

It would be more understandable if you add in the material section how many seeds were examined on average for each type.

 

40 species are written in table 1, but this should be changed to 40 species.

In Appendix A tables, column explanations (abbreviations) should be given as additional information under the table.

In Appendix A table headings should be changed to species instead of seed.

According to the decision taken in Turkey, the country name has been edited as Turkey in English, so please change it to Türkiye in the entire article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

According to your comments, cluster analysis has been done and the corresponding results are represented now in a Dendrogram in Figure 13, that contributes to highlight the main results of the application of the methods in Taxonomy. Also, the two image magnifications that were not used in the present work have been removed from the materials and methods section.

As for the number of species, while 100 is the number used in previous studies by our group (quoted in the abstract), 122 is the number of species in the collection of seed images used in the present work (as indicated in the materials and methods). This work is based on the Turkish collection of SEM images that contains seed images from 122 species. As indicated in the Materials and Methods (section 2.2), from these 122 images, a group was selected with tubercles well-defined and regularly shaped, avoiding those with irregular tubercles or without tubercles.

In Appendix A, tables, abbreviations have been explained as indicated, and “seeds” changed to “species” in the Table headings.

In relation with the country name for Turkey, all the mentions in the text of the article have been changed to Türkiye. Mentions in the Reference section have not been changed because the articles are quoted as they are published in the past.

On behalf of the authors,

Emilio Cervantes

Corresponding author

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This contribution is  the continuation of other works signed by some of the authors (articles 62, 63, 64, 67, 69 etc.) with a different geographical focus and the use of SEM images instead than light microscope observations. The work consists in the application of a methodology already used in other contributions on 40 species occurring in Turkey. The possibility of plagiarism, not tested with specific software, is very high. 

 

I have not uderstood why the authors present the analysis of 40 species, in the abstract are speaking of 100 species and in matherial and methods that they have started form a collection of 122 species. These sentences should be reformulated to better explain that the 100 species have already been presented in other contributions and that here are presented the observations on further 40 species (no need to tell that the authors had 122 images available). Statistical analyzes are very basic or completely absent. I have not understood how many seeds were obeserved per each species and if the measures given are a mean or only one SEM photo was measured per each species. In this last case a qualitative preliminary discussion would be better than a quantitative discussion based on a single observation.  In conclusion, the work, although not very innovative, brings useful data for the study of the specie of the genus Silene. The language used is clear and, to my knowledge, does not require linguistic revision. Once better explained M&M and corrected the discussion accordigly the MS can be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

In relation with the number of species, 100 is the number used in previous studies by our group (quoted in the abstract), while 122 is the number of species in the Turkish collection of SEM images used in the present work (as indicated in the materials and methods). This collection contains images from 122 species. As indicated in the Materials and Methods (section 2.2), from these 122 images were selected those with tubercles well-defined and regularly shaped, avoiding those with irregular tubercles or without tubercles.

Concerning statistical analyses, these are limited to the comparison between groups (Tables 8 and 9), and the discussion is focused mainly on these results.

On behalf of the authors,

Emilio Cervantes

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved and can be recommended for publication after a few minor technical corrections I have pointed out in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Table 1 has been corrected according to your instructions. Specimen numbers have been deleted as indicated.

The corrections corresponding to the other points raised in your review have been done in the re-submitted version of the article.

In behalf of the authors,

Emilio Cervantes

Corresponding author

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Requested corrections and additions have been made. It can be published in this form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

On behalf of the authors,

Emilio Cervantes

Corresponding author