A New Ant Species of Strumigenys Smith, 1860 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Nice paper, with good description of a new Strumigenys species.

The only remark on the content I have is that it seems strange to me that the author is not able to put the new species in one of the species groups defined earlier. May be not does not fit in one but in that case he should define himself a new species group. Having a new species in a genus where all species have been put in species groups, that is not defined to a species group is strange.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Nice paper, with good description of a new Strumigenys species.

The only remark on the content I have is that it seems strange to me that the author is not able to put the new species in one of the species groups defined earlier. May be not does not fit in one but in that case he should define himself a new species group. Having a new species in a genus where all species have been put in species groups, that is not defined to a species group is strange.

Firstly, thanks a lot for the review, it greatly improve the manuscript.

The new species do not fit well in the existing groups. However, I was reluctant to create another group, because it fits partially into some species groups (while also lacking important traits of those). Moreover, the new phylogeny shows some unexpected relations between some Neotropical "Pyramica" and due to the lack of genetic data for S. flavianae I thought creating another group could be revealed a mistake as soon as S. flavianae got sequenced.

Despite that, considering that this was also the opinion of other reviewers, I characterize a flavianae-group to include the new species in the revised version of the manuscript.

Review Paper in Taxonomy on the description of Strumigenys flavianae sp. nov.

Introduction

Line 15-16 …that live on the leaf litter…. maybe better in the leaf litter

Changed.

You mention that there is a long lasting debate whether Strumigenys represents one, two or various

genera. Further you mention that there is molecular evidence for a single, hyperdiverse genus based

on Booher et al. 2021. This study is very speculative on this, they did not use a wide range of

Strumigenys species to support one single genus. Be careful by referring to this.

I changed the way I said it in the sentence not to sound so strict. However, I consider their sampling wide enough (see their S5Fig). For example, in the Neotropics, they included 82 spp. in the phylogeny out of a total of 210 spp. (more than 38% of the diversity of that region), with many species groups represented (true for species groups of other biogeographic zones). If, with those results, the decision was to split the clade instead of unifying it under one large genus, then the result would necessarily be the revival of a large number of genera, and maybe the creation of a few more (Strumigenys itself would not exist outside the Neotropics). While the splitting scenario is a possible alternative, doing so in a genus where the key morphological traits (spongiform tissue; leg, mandibular, and scape glands, ventral gaster patch of specialized setae, among other things) are widespread and consistent across the species of all biogeographic zones seems less correct than the all-in-a-single-genus scenario.

In which way would you state that this new species also hints to this one hyperdiverse genus for all

these species? Maybe refer to this in the discussion. If you do not do this, than I do not see the point

of mentioning all this in the introduction. Moreover you did not mention your opinion on this. Or

which one you follow/support in this paper. I assume the Booher et al opinion. If so please mention

this.

In the Introduction, I chose to focus on the fact that new species keep being found even in a very large and well-studied genus such as Strumigenys. The additional species indeed contributes just a little to that diversity, still, it is one more. Another reason why I think it is pertinent to go through that way in the Introduction is that by doing so, I establish a partial history of the genus for the Neotropics (at least from 2000 onwards).

Line 21: In the species level …. At species level….

Changed.

Materials and Methods

I do mis some figures explaining some of the newly introduced body measurements like ML2, HD,

DPetndL, GW. No problem to use new ones but please at least show them on one or the other

figure/drawing. You did not illustrate any of the usually used body measurements of Brassard et al.

For instance PrW, SI, Ci are not explained in this paper. You can refer to Brassard, but however it

would be much nicer of you also explain (make reference to of course) the abbreviations you used

on pg 5. On pg 2 you also mention WL and MtfmL, MttbL which are not explained in the paper.

Considering how satisfactorily the five figures are distributed in the current version, I would not like to add another one at this point, especially because such a figure would better fit in the first position, which would require an entire change in structure.

Since I refer to Brassard et al., I only explained what is not in there. PrW, WL, MtfmL, MttbL, CI and SI are depicted and explained in Brassard et al., 2020. I made more clear the descriptions of some of the measurements which are not in Brassard et al., these ones: ML2, HD, DPetndL, PosPetL, PosPetW, and GW.

Line 90: you used point coordinates of the species from antweb.org. However this is tricky of for

some records no pictures are present.

I only used the coordinates of specimens that have been photographed or specimens that I examined physically. In the latter case they are databased on Antweb, but have not been imaged.

One can post anything on this site, without any control of correct ID.

Not so loose like that, but, yes, there are mistakes.

At least explain this or at least convince the reader that you only used 100% correct

identified records for the map.

I added the explanation in the methods that I only used specimens imaged to make the map.

Results

Figure 3: I’m not convinced that what you call pink symbols are always well seen as pink ones. They

more look like red ones.

Changed.

You mention that using the key of Neotropical Pyramica species to ID the new species gets stuck at

different levels. However a solution is only suggested for one level 62 and not for where you get

stuck at couplet 42. Why is this? Please explain.

You and another reviewer noticed problems with this part. I agree and tried another solution, to make couplet 31 a triplet instead. I hope that this modification will make the task of identifying S. flavianae easier. Although I believe, as I said somewhere in the manuscript, that an important thing at this point is to make a new key to the Neotropics, considering that there have been too many amendments to Bolton's key (it is becoming a great mess already - and it is no one's fault, it is simply happening).

Discussion

Line 282… a large unpublished paper…. I would not use unpublished as it was published as it has a

DOI. Reword this line.

Thanks for catching that mistake.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

 

 I read an interesting manuscript about a new description of an ant species of the genus Strumigenys in Brazil. I recommend that title needs to be modified as follows:  Strumigenys flavianae Chaul sp. nov. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a remarkable new ant species from Brazilian Atlantic Forest.

Please state clearly what affiliation 1 and email are. 

Abstract needs to include significant information such introduction, material and methods, results, discussion and conclusions. 

Please remove keywords that are repeated in title and add new ones if possible.

Introduction is too small, and readers need more specific information about this interesting ant genus. Add new paragraphs, of at least 4 statements each one, where you address the following topics: 1) morphological description and diagnosis of the genus, 2) diversity and distribution of the genus, 3) a historial review of the previous studies on the taxonomy of this ant genus, 4) justification where you state clearly why this new species is remarkable or the taxonomic problems in species groups.

In material and methods, you must add or organize information in the following sections: 1) taxon sampling, 2) morphological data set, 3) species delimitation method (it means that you need to support the finding of this new species with an objective method, state clearly), 4) data management, where you must to indicate why there are lots of references to antweb, 5) species name (indicate methods to treat nouns in apposition and thus invariant), and 6) specimen repository.

After performing all this suggestions, you must send your manuscript to English revision by a native speaker translator or to MDPI English editing service. 

 Good luck and I am Looking to hear from you soon .

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Dear author,

I read an interesting manuscript about a new description of an ant species of the genus Strumigenys in Brazil. I recommend that title needs to be modified as follows: Strumigenys flavianae Chaul sp. nov. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a remarkable new ant species from Brazilian Atlantic Forest.

Firstly, thanks a lot for the review, it greatly improve the manuscript.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I prefer to keep the title as it was, as it is a little shorter (two lines rather than three in the journal font size for the title). The name of the new species appears in the first sentence of the abstract, so I think it is quite evident already.

Please state clearly what affiliation 1 and email are.

Done

Abstract needs to include significant information such introduction, material and methods, results, discussion and conclusions.

I tried to enrich the abstract with more information.

Please remove keywords that are repeated in title and add new ones if possible.

Done.

Introduction is too small, and readers need more specific information about this interesting ant genus. Add new paragraphs, of at least 4 statements each one, where you address the following topics: 1) morphological description and diagnosis of the genus, 2) diversity and distribution of the genus, 3) a historial review of the previous studies on the taxonomy of this ant genus, 4) justification where you state clearly why this new species is remarkable or the taxonomic problems in species groups.

I added paragraphs and information in the Introduction, especially on the suggested topics 1) and 4). Regarding issues 2) and 3), I considered the text already had enough information on those. I do not think the description of one isolated Neotropical species should contain a complete overview of the bibliography of Strumigenys, but only the references which deal with the Neotropical fauna.

In material and methods, you must add or organize information in the following sections: 1) taxon sampling, 2) morphological data set, 3) species delimitation method (it means that you need to support the finding of this new species with an objective method, state clearly), 4) data management, where you must to indicate why there are lots of references to antweb, 5) species name (indicate methods to treat nouns in apposition and thus invariant), and 6) specimen repository.

I modified the M&M to make it more organized, and I believe is much clear and easy for the reader now. I did not follow strictly, though, the suggestions of topics. For example, topic 5 was added to the Etymology section rather than in M&M, and regarding topic 1, I said nothing, as I worked on museum specimens that were sampled by other researchers and were simply deposited in the CELC ant collection.

After performing all this suggestions, you must send your manuscript to English revision by a native speaker translator or to MDPI English editing service.

I did the English corrections according to the guidance of the editorial team.

Good luck and I am Looking to hear from you soon.

Thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Great to see such detail given to a new species description and I support this publication moving forward with the following comments/suggestions.

I wanted to also clue the author in on the potential locking mechanism this species might have. I found S. cincinnata to have a pocket on the anterior portion of the labrum where the basal lamellae of the mandible could form a latch when the mandibles are barely open in parallel position. In looking at the picture of the lamellae (which is awesome to see dissected out) it looks as though there is more heavy scleritization on the anterior lateral portions just basal of the lobes and might also be able to form a latch (even though the basal lamellae and labrum differ in morphology).

Also wanted to mention that Strumigenys in the magnifica complex of the doriae-group are all super slender and occupy narrow long cavities in sticks. It is likely that this body type is convergent among stick-cavity nesters.

The general use of ‘very’ is over used and quantifications or comparisons need to be given in many places instead of this word.

I also suggest trying to place this species in its own single species group with a species-group description. This would also be useful in quickly diagnosing this species and can easily be separated from both groups by labrum/basal lamellae and dentition.

Line 21 - Change "in" the species level to "at" species level. 

Line 22 - The Bolton revision has many species groups with species belonging to several biological regions. rostrata group for one. You may want to revisit this statement.

Line 29 – instead of affinities to other species, say if they are morphological and if the species can fit into a species group. If the phylogeny shows that species group is monophyletic then that would be further support for the morphological placement into a species group and their relatedness.

Line 37 – is it that all Strumigenys have setae instead of cuticular spongiform or is it just some, if the latter, then that should be mentioned briefly.

Line 43 except that additionally I also made the following- could be more simply stated as “except for the following additions”

Line 52 – head depth is quite variable depending on the curvature of the dorsal and ventral surface outlines of the head, could you give a bit more detail on how this was exactly measured?

Line 59 – ‘gaster’ should be gastral

The diagnosis should describe how this species differs from all others. I think a short introduction that it is similar to species in the two groups probatrix and hyphata and how it differs from them would be helpful.

Line 111- the use of the descriptor “very elongate” requires a comparison to other species and should include a quantified measure as a diagnostic tool.

Line 127 – I am not sure what is meant by ‘apical side of basal lamellae’ are you saying the tooth arises from the lamella or that there is no diastemmic gap between the lamellae and first tooth?

Line 132 – remove the word ‘all’ just larger than the basal 7 teeth

Line 135 – basal ‘body’ is a strange term. Maybe exclude the word ‘body’

Line 154 – slender should be quantified. How wide is the pronotum compared to the mesosoma.

General comments on description –

The description could be broken up and organized a bit better. All the information needed for description is given but I suggest reorganizing and breaking up sections for example Head could be a paragraph with subheadings of morphology, pilosity, and sculpture.  Or subheadings of mandibles, labrum, antennae, head capsule with descriptions of the morphology, pilosity, and sculpture in each of those. I find the information is a bit hard to parse as written but that is a personal suggestion and should not keep the manuscript from publication.

Line 194 – ‘etimology’ is misspelled – should be etymology, also ‘coleagues’ should be colleagues. In the etymology it should be stated how the name is constructed. – This has been asked of several taxonomist of myself and what it does is make sure that the name you have provided wouldn’t have to change if the genus name changed grammatical gender. You can review a few of these in the recent publication https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5061.2.1, but I think this should suffice for this species – “The name was created by adding the singular Latin genitive case suffix -ae to the last name of a female person. The orthography of an eponym is unchangeable and not dependent on the generic name in which the epithet is used.” If you have any further questions email Brian Fisher – he is happy to help.

Line 207 – you don’t need to say provisional, just that the species can be keyed with the following modification to the following couplets

-        I also wonder if this species might not be able to be keyed out earlier as a triplet by the scape hairs. They are more elongate and wavy without a defined curvature that point to the base or apex. Elongate would need to be quantified in some way such as how far away the tips are from where they arise compared to the maximum width of the scape – but that seems to be a key character and could be used as a diagnostic character.

Line 225 – the word blatant should be changed or removed – maybe this is more what you mean? This species highlight the necessity for an updated key to all Neotropical species.

 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

Great to see such detail given to a new species description and I support this publication moving forward with the following comments/suggestions.

Thanks for the meticulous revision, it was very helpful and greatly improved the manuscript.

I wanted to also clue the author in on the potential locking mechanism this species might have. I found S. cincinnata to have a pocket on the anterior portion of the labrum where the basal lamellae of the mandible could form a latch when the mandibles are barely open in parallel position. In looking at the picture of the lamellae (which is awesome to see dissected out) it looks as though there is more heavy scleritization on the anterior lateral portions just basal of the lobes and might also be able to form a latch (even though the basal lamellae and labrum differ in morphology).

I have dissected the labrum of S. hyphata and S. cincinnata as well; the "pocket" you mention is probably what gives the labrum the hourglass shape I mentioned in this sentence of the text:

"Moreover, the labrum in the hyphata-group is very typical, with the main body being roughly hourglass-shaped (imaged under specimen ANTWEB1032490 on Antweb.org), not resembling that of S. flavianae (Figure2, G)"

They can be found here:

https://www.antweb.org/bigPicture.do?name=ufv-labecol-000095&shot=p&number=5

https://www.antweb.org/bigPicture.do?name=antweb1032490&shot=h&number=4

https://www.antweb.org/bigPicture.do?name=antweb1032009&shot=p&number=9 (this one is the mandible of cincinnata)

The labrum of S. flavianae is not very similar to those, but neither it is radically different.

I don't get it when you say " In looking at the picture of the lamellae (which is awesome to see dissected out)", because I have not dissected the mandibles of any of the three specimens of S. flavianae. The best image of the basal lamella is this one of a paratype (not in the paper):

https://www.antweb.org/bigPicture.do?name=antweb1032422&shot=p&number=5

I think I got the idea of a latch forming in the hyphata-group when the mandibles are barely open, but I don't know if such a mechanism occurs in S. flavianae, because the "pocket" is too shallow. Its basal lamella is too small, so maybe the new species has GRP mandible mechanism, does it make sense?

Also wanted to mention that Strumigenys in the magnifica complex of the doriae-group are all super slender and occupy narrow long cavities in sticks. It is likely that this body type is convergent among stick-cavity nesters.

I added a short text talking about the slenderness of the new species in relation to other species in the Neotropical fauna, however, I did not mention these other examples of lineages in other biogeographical zones, as I did not find a good place to insert that information. Thanks for the tip anyway! In fact, talking about slenderness, I was shocked to stumble across this one:

https://www.antweb.org/bigPicture.do?name=casent0914937&number=1&shot=p

It is magnificent!

The general use of ‘very’ is over used and quantifications or comparisons need to be given in many places instead of this word.

I'll go through the whole text with that in mind and change it whenever I can for the reviewed version.

I also suggest trying to place this species in its own single species group with a species-group description. This would also be useful in quickly diagnosing this species and can easily be separated from both groups by labrum/basal lamellae and dentition.

Done.

Line 21 - Change "in" the species level to "at" species level.

Done.

Line 22 - The Bolton revision has many species groups with species belonging to several biological regions. rostrata group for one. You may want to revisit this statement.

I changed the sentence slightly to make it more accurate.

Line 29 – instead of affinities to other species, say if they are morphological and if the species can fit into a species group. If the phylogeny shows that species group is monophyletic then that would be further support for the morphological placement into a species group and their relatedness.

Changed.

Line 37 – is it that all Strumigenys have setae instead of cuticular spongiform or is it just some, if the latter, then that should be mentioned briefly.

Yes, it is present in all species I examined (most species in the Australian and Neotropical fauna). Rarely it is entirely absent in the females, but whenever it is present, then it is composed of setae and never of spongiform tissue.

Line 43 except that additionally I also made the following- could be more simply stated as “except for the following additions”

Changed.

Line 52 – head depth is quite variable depending on the curvature of the dorsal and ventral surface outlines of the head, could you give a bit more detail on how this was exactly measured?

I tried to explain it better now in the description of the measurement.

Line 59 – ‘gaster’ should be gastral

Changed here and changed in other similar parts of the text.

The diagnosis should describe how this species differs from all others. I think a short introduction that it is similar to species in the two groups probatrix and hyphata and how it differs from them would be helpful.

Other reviewers made similar comments. I changed the diagnosis to try to make that idea more precise, although what was initially there was already a set of character states that isolate it from the others.

Line 111- the use of the descriptor “very elongate” requires a comparison to other species and should include a quantified measure as a diagnostic tool.

Since this is within the description, I do not think it is proper to make comparisons to other species in that portion is correct. I think CI given just above is enough to show that it is an elongate head.

Line 127 – I am not sure what is meant by ‘apical side of basal lamellae’ are you saying the tooth arises from the lamella or that there is no diastemmic gap between the lamellae and first tooth?

The way I put it was indeed weird, saying that there is no diastemmic gap is probably the most accurate way of describing the basal portion of the inner mandible margin.

Line 132 – remove the word ‘all’ just larger than the basal 7 teeth

Done.

Line 135 – basal ‘body’ is a strange term. Maybe exclude the word ‘body’

Ok. I think I have seen that somewhere in Bolton 2000, but it is, in fact, unnecessary.

Line 154 – slender should be quantified. How wide is the pronotum compared to the mesosoma.

General comments on description –

The description could be broken up and organized a bit better. All the information needed for description is given but I suggest reorganizing and breaking up sections for example Head could be a paragraph with subheadings of morphology, pilosity, and sculpture. Or subheadings of mandibles, labrum, antennae, head capsule with descriptions of the morphology, pilosity, and sculpture in each of those. I find the information is a bit hard to parse as written but that is a personal suggestion and should not keep the manuscript from publication.

I prefer to maintain it like it is, the sections exist (although they are only three) and are not that big. However, one interesting change I made, suggested by another reviewer, was to refer to the figures in some parts of the description.

Line 194 – ‘etimology’ is misspelled – should be etymology, also ‘coleagues’ should be colleagues. In the etymology it should be stated how the name is constructed. – This has been asked of several taxonomist of myself and what it does is make sure that the name you have provided wouldn’t have to change if the genus name changed grammatical gender. You can review a few of these in the recent publication https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5061.2.1, but I think this should suffice for this species – “The name was created by adding the singular Latin genitive case suffix -ae to the last name of a female person. The orthography of an eponym is unchangeable and not dependent on the generic name in which the epithet is used.” If you have any further questions email Brian Fisher – he is happy to help.

The grammatical errors have been corrected. Thanks for the suggestion of the text explaining the construction of the name, I added it to the manuscript as you suggested. It is much better now.

Line 207 – you don’t need to say provisional, just that the species can be keyed with the following modification to the following couplets

- I also wonder if this species might not be able to be keyed out earlier as a triplet by the scape hairs. They are more elongate and wavy without a defined curvature that point to the base or apex. Elongate would need to be quantified in some way such as how far away the tips are from where they arise compared to the maximum width of the scape – but that seems to be a key character and could be used as a diagnostic character.

I made a big change in this part considering this comment, I believe it meets what was suggested.

Line 225 – the word blatant should be changed or removed – maybe this is more what you mean? This species highlight the necessity for an updated key to all Neotropical species.

Removed and changed.

Reviewer 4 Report

Please address the comments provided on the pdf.  I think the most important issues to address:

1) add to the diagnosis a clear statement on how to distinguish the new species from all known species in South America

2) Reorganize the Discussion or at least provide subheaders to guide the reader through the discussion - currently, it jumps from topic to topic without a clear path.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIWER 4

Please address the comments provided on the pdf.

Firstly, thanks a lot for the review, it significantly improve the manuscript.

I accepted all suggestions made in the pdf attachment and the reviewed text includes them all.

Some notes:

Regarding the suggestion for the Etymology section, I made a combination of your request and that of Reviewer 3.

Regarding the comment on maybe sequencing the type series: I currently do not have the means to do the sequencing of this material (no genetic training and no lab available). I changed the sentence a little bit but maintained the comment there to state that this could be an interesting direction to go in the future for researchers working with this fauna.

I think the most important issues to address:

1) add to the diagnosis a clear statement on how to distinguish the new species from all known species in South America

Done.

2) Reorganize the Discussion or at least provide subheaders to guide the reader through the discussion - currently, it jumps from topic to topic without a clear path.

Done.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no more comments.