Open-access, online, rapid taxonomy
ISSN: 2653-4649 (Online)
Australian Journal of
Taxonomy
This paper has been reviewed by two reviewers. As Subject Editor handling the paper, your task is now to review the reviewers' comments and add comments of your own as necessary. These may be issues with the text that you pick up that the editors have not commented on, or responses from you to the author based on the reviewer comments (for example, agreeing, disagreeing, or clarifying the reviewer comments).
The reviewers' recommendations are given at the bottom of the page. Please also add you own general comments to the author, as necessary.
Remember, you need to assess each taxon (if any) as well as the main body of the paper.
When done, check the 'Done' checkbox, and Submit.
Please Wait...
Taxon name
Azelota diversipes
Rev1:
Rev2:
Figure citations
Rev1:
Rev2:
Registration Number
Rev1:
Rev2:
Type statement
Rev1:
Rev2:
Synonymy
Rev1:
Rev2:
Diagnosis
Rev1:
Rev2:
Description
No change to the status of this species, the type of Azelotais proposed. It is included here to show that the other species do not belong in Azelota.
Rentz et al. (2003) provides images and a detailed description of this species.
The specimens examined were all collected by K.H.L. Key.
RR15 includes a label “Comp. with holotype of Azelota diversipes Rehn, by K.H.L. Key, 1963”.
All specimens were a moderate brown colour with a pale stripe on the tegmina.
Length ranged from 19mm to 23 mm.
The fastigium was weakly descending, anterior margins weakly carinate, parallel sides, no median carina.
The lateral fovalae are distinct, and can be seen from above.
Frons near vertical in profile. The frontal sulcus is strongly carinate for its full length, slightly widening ventrally, a weak constriction at the ocellus, and then slightly diverging.
The occiput has a weak median carina.
The pronotum is slightly rough, with distinct median carina and lateral carinae. The lateral carinae are slightly converging on the mesozona, and then strongly diverge on the metazoan. There are three transverse sulci that cut the lateral carinae.[RR1] Rentz et al. (2003) state that all three sulci cut the median carina. However this is almost imperceptible for the anterior two, but the posterior sulcus strongly cuts the median carina.
The lateral carinae are undulating, roughly parallel on the prozona, and then strongly diverging anteriorly.
Rentz et al. (2003) describe the prosternal process as “ quadrate wedge in the male”, but the in the specimens examined it is rather inflated and tongue like.
The male furcula is well defined with long parallel arms.
The male cercus is broad at the base and tapers in a curve, the tip being directed downwards, and the ventral margin acute.
Rev1:
Rev2:
Specimens Examined
Specimens of four males with the following database numbers were examined: ANIC00018899-01; ANIC00018900-01 ANIC00018901-01; ANIC00018902-01.
Rev1:
Rev2:
Notes
Rev1:
Rev2:
Figure 10. a ANIC00018899-01; b ANIC00018899-01; c ANIC00018899-01; d ANIC00018899-01; e ANIC00018899-01; f ANIC00018900-01
Rev1:
Rev2:
Figure 11. a ANIC00018901-01; b ANIC00018901-01; c ANIC00018901-01; d ANIC00018900-01
Rev1:
Rev2:
Rev1:
Rev2:
Rev1:
comment
Rev2:
Rev1:
Rev2:
Table content
Rev1:
Rev2:
General Review comments on this taxon
For author(s)
Both reviewers agree that the authors have a valid new species, but both reviewers agree that the very limited morphological description is a significant flaw in the manuscript. Revewer 2 has given more detailed comments on this issue but reviewer 1 also noted the unfortunate lack of a description of the radula. I agree that this needs to be remedied and that the authors do need to revise the manuscript with a significantly improved description including morphological characters used in other descriptions of taxa in this genus. Example references that will assist this are provided by reviewer 2 but the authors should seek other recent papers also.
In particular note the comment of referee 2 that the holotype needs to be described separately. This needs to be followed, with variation present in the remaining specimens provided in separate paragraphs. The recent literature in nudibranchs will provide numerous examples.
However, all the issues raised by both referees need to be responded to.
It is a concern that one of the reviewers pointed out that Yap et al 2020 is not a real reference, or perhaps it is a mangling of this reference:
Soong, G.Y., Wilson, N.G. & Reimer, J.D. A species complex within the red-reticulate Goniobranchus Pease, 1866 (Nudibranchia: Doridina: Chromodorididae). Mar. Biodivers. 50, 25 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-020-01048-w
given this and the concerns of reviewer 2 I would like to see a doi provided for all references when a revised manuscript is resubmitted. AJT does not specify a bibliographic style to use for references but inclusion of a doi where one exists is becoming a de-facto standard. This is easily done using various online tools (especially the standard crossref: https://apps.crossref.org/simpleTextQuery ). When resubmitting the authors should also include a statement about which, if any, parts of the manuscript were prepared using AI.
Rev1:
Both reviewers agree that the authors have a valid new species, but both reviewers agree that the very limited morphological description is a significant flaw in the manuscript. Revewer 2 has given more detailed comments on this issue but reviewer 1 also noted the unfortunate lack of a description of the radula. I agree that this needs to be remedied and that the authors do need to revise the manuscript with a significantly improved description including morphological characters used in other descriptions of taxa in this genus. Example references that will assist this are provided by reviewer 2 but the authors should seek other recent papers also.
In particular note the comment of referee 2 that the holotype needs to be described separately. This needs to be followed, with variation present in the remaining specimens provided in separate paragraphs. The recent literature in nudibranchs will provide numerous examples.
However, all the issues raised by both referees need to be responded to.
It is a concern that one of the reviewers pointed out that Yap et al 2020 is not a real reference, or perhaps it is a mangling of this reference:
Soong, G.Y., Wilson, N.G. & Reimer, J.D. A species complex within the red-reticulate Goniobranchus Pease, 1866 (Nudibranchia: Doridina: Chromodorididae). Mar. Biodivers. 50, 25 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-020-01048-w
given this and the concerns of reviewer 2 I would like to see a doi provided for all references when a revised manuscript is resubmitted. AJT does not specify a bibliographic style to use for references but inclusion of a doi where one exists is becoming a de-facto standard. This is easily done using various online tools (especially the standard crossref: https://apps.crossref.org/simpleTextQuery ). When resubmitting the authors should also include a statement about which, if any, parts of the manuscript were prepared using AI.
Rev2:
For editors
Rev1:
Rev2:
Review completed?
Please wait...
