PONE-D-20-01494

Diversity trapped in cages: revision of Blumenavia Möller (Clathraceae, Basidiomycota) reveals three hidden species

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs. Melanda,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

===

All three reviewers found your study interesting. However, they also suggested revisions. Although overall it is a minor revision, they are many places that the authors have to pay close attention. Especially, the authors need to  respond carefully to the reviewers 1 and 3 as they requested a thorough edition. 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 11 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Soo Chan Lee

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding the samples used in your study and ensure you have described the source. For more information regarding PLOS' policy on materials sharing and reporting, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-materials.

3. Please take this opportunity to be sure you have met all of our guidelines for new species. When publishing papers that describe a new fungal taxon name, PLOS aims to comply with the requirements of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). The following guidelines for publication in an online-only journal have been agreed such that any scientific fungal name published by us is considered effectively published under the rules of the Code. Please note that these guidelines differ from those for zoological nomenclature.

Effective January 2012, "the description or diagnosis required for valid publication of the name of a new taxon" can be in either Latin or English. This does not affect the requirements for scientific names, which are still to be Latin.

Also effective January 2012, the electronic PDF represents a published work according to the ICN for algae, fungi, and plants. Therefore the new names contained in the electronic publication of a PLOS ONE article are effectively published under that Code from the electronic edition alone, so there is no longer any need to provide printed copies.

For proper registration of the new taxon, we require two specific statements to be included in your manuscript.

a)    In the Results section, the globally unique identifier (GUID), currently in the form of a Life Science Identifier (LSID), should be listed under the new species name, for example:

Hymenogaster huthii. Stielow et al. 2010, sp. nov. [urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:names:518624]

You will need to contact either Mycobank or Index Fungorum to obtain the GUID (LSID).

b)    In the Methods section, include a sub-section called "Nomenclature" using the following wording (this example is for taxon names submitted to MycoBank; please substitute appropriately if you have submitted to Index Fungorum and use the prefix http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID= ):

The electronic version of this article in Portable Document Format (PDF) in a work with an ISSN or ISBN will represent a published work according to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, and hence the new names contained in the electronic publication of a PLOS ONE article are effectively published under that Code from the electronic edition alone, so there is no longer any need to provide printed copies.

In addition, new names contained in this work have been submitted to MycoBank from where they will be made available to the Global Names Index. The unique MycoBank number can be resolved and the associated information viewed through any standard web browser by appending the MycoBank number contained in this publication to the prefix http://www.mycobank.org/MB/. The online version of this work is archived and available from the following digital repositories: [INSERT NAMES OF DIGITAL REPOSITORIES WHERE ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT WILL BE SUBMITTED (PubMed Central, LOCKSS etc)].

All PLOS ONE articles are deposited in PubMed Central and LOCKSS. If your institute, or those of your co-authors, has its own repository, we recommend that you also deposit the published online article there and include the name in your article.

A complete explanation of our guidelines for publishing new species can be found on our website: http://www.plosone.org/static/guidelines#fungal

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have done a very thorough revision of Blumenavia genus, including type specimens. This is a poorly studied group with rare species mainly because of their receptacles ephemeral and fragile. The manuscript presents original data and relevant information. Some modification are necessary to in order to render it accaptable for publication. My suggestions are included in the attached PDF document.

Reviewer #2: The authors present a highly interesting topic for the criptic taxa of the genus Blumenavia, combining morphological and molecular data of the analyzed species, their ecology, as well as comparative revision of the material form collections, especially type species.

The presented data are sufficient, representative and well documented, presenting new and original information. The interpretations are logical and well supported.

The text is concise and clearly explains topics, methodologies, data and conclusions.

The title of the paper clearly characterizes its content.

The abstract is clear and informative and comprise adequately the content of the manuscript.

The applied methods are appropriate, presented clearly and understandable.

The descriptions of species are fairly well performed and relevant.

Figures and tables are clearly presented and correctly labeled. They are instructive and captions unambiguously explain pictured details. Important features from all available material are presented with clear photos. Additionally, including the reprints of the old collections, representing all data at the same place, is a very good way for comparison.

All the references are adequate and necessary, considering recent research.

Conclusions are highly supported by the presented data and the results.

Minor issues:

p. 9 Molecular phylogeny

The number of the specimens and the number of the sequences written in the text is not the same as shown in Table 1. Please check it.

p. 14, 322 B. heroica should be changed with B. crucis-hellenicae. (B. heroica belongs to the white colored species and B. crucis-hellenicae is with yellowish color, as it is shown in all other parts for both species – key, description, photos).

I recommend this paper as acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review a nice taxonomic manuscript. It would be more traditional to see it in Mycologia or Taxon magazines, but regarding novel adds to the (still) not quite traditional methods to delimit species boundaries like phylogeny PLoS definitely can serve as a proper place for it. I feel confident to recommend your manuscript to be published with minor revisions. Also, I have a few questions, below.

1. I believe Table 1 better belongs to the Supplements.

Material and Methods

Phylogenetic Analysis

2. Did you obtained all sequences of the specimens from genus Blumenavia you have used for your reconstructions? Have you compared your sequences to the available ones in GenBanks and how you find their identity/ similarity?

Results and Discussion

Molecular phylogeny, lines 196-198

3. For this study, DNA sequences of 12 specimens of Blumenavia were obtained: 9 ITS, 8 LSU, 6 ATP6, 9 RPB2 and 9 TEF-1a (Table 1). Sequences from B. usambarensis were not obtained.

better to modify

For this study, DNA sequences of 12 specimens of Blumenavia were obtained: 9 ITS, 8 LSU, 6 ATP6, 9 RPB2 and 9 TEF-1a (Table 1),except B. usambarensis.

4. Did all trees (MP, ML and BI) have the same topology?

Blumenavia angolensis (Welw. & Curr.) Dring, Kew Bull. 35(1): 53 (1980), description

5. I believe, "covered with glebal mass." in line 279 has to be removed.

6. Cannot access the alignments at http://purl.org/phylo/treebase/phylows/study/TB2:S25096?x-access192 code=cb0af291cea482c1bfa56649485eb9b2&format=html

I wish you good luck with this publication and hope to see it soon in PLoS.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Diversity trapped in cages: revision of Blumenavia Möller (Clathraceae, Basidiomycota) reveals three hidden species

PONE-D-20-01494R1

Dear Dr. Melanda,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Soo Chan Lee

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Congratulations for the great work.

The manuscript is much improved, with modified text to better understanding and adding relevant informations on the study of the genus Blumenavia.

Most of the suggestions were accepted and others were justified.

Very nice work!

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed the comments.

The manuscript sound technically and the data support the conclusions.

The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously.

The authors have made all data fully available in their manuscript.

The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

I recommend this manuscript for publication.

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thorough revision through the manuscript and addressing all my concerns and comments. I believe, your manuscript is good to go and can now be published with no further reservations.

Sincerely,

Reviewer.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Andrii P. Gryganskyi