An update on Scaponopselaphus Scheerpeltz (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) with the description of three new species, and a key to the species

Louri Klemann-Junior; Angélico Asenjo; Bruno Gouvea; Roberta M. Valente

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326484

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 30, 2025
Decision Letter - Alex Slavenko, Editor Dear Dr. Klemann-Junior, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 11 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're 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. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Alex Slavenko 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that Figures 2, 13 and 14 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2, 13 and 14 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ Additional Editor Comments: I have now received three independent reviews of this manuscript. Reviewers #1 and #2 both have high praise for the taxonomic sections of the manuscript, complementing the thoroughness of the work undertaken. Reviewers #1 and #3 have some suggestions to improve the clarity and correct some errors, and reviewer #3 especially has submitted some very thorough edits for the manuscript. I encourage the authors to go over these suggestions carefully prior to resubmission. I do share reviewer #2's concerns regarding the ENMs, particularly in regards to some of the methodological decisions made and how these might bias the results and interpretation. However, I also agree with the reviewer that the entire section could be removed from the manuscript to no great detriment, and it would still be a quality manuscript worthy of publication. Ultimately, I leave the decision up to the authors on whether to attempt to revise the ENM section according to reviewer 2's suggestions or delete it entirely. Either would be acceptable. [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? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: This is a great taxonomic paper describing three distinct new species of Scaponopselaphus. The illustrations for various species are really well done. There are no major issues with this paper and I think it is definitely worthy of publication. I have several minor comments that I think can improve the readability and usefulness of this paper. 1. There are a lot of measurement data in this paper, especially data that are usually absent in rove beetle papers (e.g. individual antennomere measurements). There is frequently a lot of developmental variability and I am not convinced of the usefulness of these data. These measurements are already provided as supplemental materials and I would simply remove them from the main paper, because frankly, nobody is going to read or use these. 2. I would like to caution the authors that sometimes it is very hard to tell the difference between black and dark brown color and several factors can influence this (variation in the coloration of a specimen, preservation methods, how long a specimen was in fluid before pinned, how old is the specimen). I do not think the difference between black ad dark brown is enough to differentiate the species in the key, especially between new species 1 and 2 presented here. I understand that there very few other morphological characters other than the aedeagus. 3. The GBIF occurrence data is not independent from the data in the Chatzimanolis revision since 19/39 are from that revision (data from GBIF). This is not entirely clear in the Material and Methods section. Given the limited number of independent occurrences (25) used for the ecological niche modeling analysis, I would recommend downplaying the importance of the analyses here, especially given that we have no idea of the the specific habitat that these beetles prefer. While I appreciate the attempt to bring something different to a taxonomic paper, the reality is that we did not get any new insights from these analyses that one cannot get simply by glancing at the distribution map. 4. A few specimens are labeled as sp. in the map. What are those? Are those potential new species or specimens that cannot be identified? Perhaps they should be mentioned somewhere in the text. Reviewer #2: My recommendation is for major revisions, mainly due to the issues in the ecological niche modeling (ENM) section. That said, I want to congratulate the authors on an outstanding taxonomic revision. The inclusion of pictographic keys and the excellent photographic documentation make this a valuable contribution to the knowledge of such a fascinating group. This work absolutely deserves publication, even without the ENM section. As I explain in more detail in my comments within the manuscript, if the data do not support species-level niche models and the suggested methodological improvements are not considered, I recommend removing this section to maintain the overall strength of the study. Reviewer #3: The manuscript has several errors to correct - the numbering of some figures (especially Figs 4 and 5 exchanged in the text) - the measurements and averages. If the authors have used a method that takes into account the number of specimens examined to obtain the average values, they must explain it in the chapter Measurement or the values must be corrected as in the attached file -It is not clear which character of the aedeagus distinguishes Scaponopselaphus paradoxus. It would be good to indicate it with an arrow in the figure. I am not an English language specialist, but I think a revision in this sense would be appropriate ****** 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: Yes: Stelios Chatzimanolis Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Giorgio Sabella ******** [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.] 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-05254_rev.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: rev.15.03.2025Scaponopselaphus_final2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326484.r001
Revision 1
7 May 2025 Author Response Thanks for the valuable comments. They were almost entirely incorporated into the manuscript. Following are a point by point response (in green) to each of the points made by the Reviewers. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Response: The manuscript has been reviewed for style requirements. 2. We note that Figures 2, 13 and 14 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: Response: Figures 13 and 14 have been removed from the manuscript. Images used to produce the distribution map (Fig. 2) were obtained from public domain datasets: Natural Earth, for terrain elevation and country boundaries; and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), for Brazilian states boundaries. Additional Editor Comments: I have now received three independent reviews of this manuscript. Reviewers #1 and #2 both have high praise for the taxonomic sections of the manuscript, complementing the thoroughness of the work undertaken. Reviewers #1 and #3 have some suggestions to improve the clarity and correct some errors, and reviewer #3 especially has submitted some very thorough edits for the manuscript. I encourage the authors to go over these suggestions carefully prior to resubmission. I do share reviewer #2's concerns regarding the ENMs, particularly in regards to some of the methodological decisions made and how these might bias the results and interpretation. However, I also agree with the reviewer that the entire section could be removed from the manuscript to no great detriment, and it would still be a quality manuscript worthy of publication. Ultimately, I leave the decision up to the authors on whether to attempt to revise the ENM section according to reviewer 2's suggestions or delete it entirely. Either would be acceptable. Response: Thanks for the valuable comments. They were almost entirely incorporated into the manuscript. Following are a point by point response (in green) to each of the points made by the Reviewers. Reviewers' comments: Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: This is a great taxonomic paper describing three distinct new species of Scaponopselaphus. The illustrations for various species are really well done. There are no major issues with this paper and I think it is definitely worthy of publication. I have several minor comments that I think can improve the readability and usefulness of this paper. 1. There are a lot of measurement data in this paper, especially data that are usually absent in rove beetle papers (e.g. individual antennomere measurements). There is frequently a lot of developmental variability and I am not convinced of the usefulness of these data. These measurements are already provided as supplemental materials and I would simply remove them from the main paper, because frankly, nobody is going to read or use these. Response: We excluded from the manuscript measurements of structures not normally measured. We retained these measurements in the supplementary materials. 2. I would like to caution the authors that sometimes it is very hard to tell the difference between black and dark brown color and several factors can influence this (variation in the coloration of a specimen, preservation methods, how long a specimen was in fluid before pinned, how old is the specimen). I do not think the difference between black ad dark brown is enough to differentiate the species in the key, especially between new species 1 and 2 presented here. I understand that there very few other morphological characters other than the aedeagus. Response: We excluded color from species differentiation and focused on aedeagus characteristics. 3. The GBIF occurrence data is not independent from the data in the Chatzimanolis revision since 19/39 are from that revision (data from GBIF). This is not entirely clear in the Material and Methods section. Given the limited number of independent occurrences (25) used for the ecological niche modeling analysis, I would recommend downplaying the importance of the analyses here, especially given that we have no idea of the specific habitat that these beetles prefer. While I appreciate the attempt to bring something different to a taxonomic paper, the reality is that we did not get any new insights from these analyses that one cannot get simply by glancing at the distribution map. Response: We removed the ecological niche modeling analysis from the manuscript. 4. A few specimens are labeled as sp. in the map. What are those? Are those potential new species or specimens that cannot be identified? Perhaps they should be mentioned somewhere in the text. Response: Records of Scaponopselaphus sp. refer to female specimens, whose species identification was not possible using only external morphological characters. We included this text in the manuscript. Reviewer #2: My recommendation is for major revisions, mainly due to the issues in the ecological niche modeling (ENM) section. That said, I want to congratulate the authors on an outstanding taxonomic revision. The inclusion of pictographic keys and the excellent photographic documentation make this a valuable contribution to the knowledge of such a fascinating group. This work absolutely deserves publication, even without the ENM section. As I explain in more detail in my comments within the manuscript, if the data do not support species-level niche models and the suggested methodological improvements are not considered, I recommend removing this section to maintain the overall strength of the study. Response: We removed the ecological niche modeling analysis from the manuscript. Reviewer #3: The manuscript has several errors to correct - the numbering of some figures (especially Figs 4 and 5 exchanged in the text) Response: We checked the numbering of figures throughout the manuscript and corrected any errors found. - the measurements and averages. If the authors have used a method that takes into account the number of specimens examined to obtain the average values, they must explain it in the chapter Measurement or the values must be corrected as in the attached file Response: To improve clarity, we have excluded the averages and kept only the maximum and minimum measurements found. -It is not clear which character of the aedeagus distinguishes Scaponopselaphus paradoxus. It would be good to indicate it with an arrow in the figure. Response: The indication of the difference in the aedeagus of S. paradoxus is in figure 12. I am not an English language specialist, but I think a revision in this sense would be appropriate Response: The manuscript has undergone a new English language revision. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326484.r002
Decision Letter - Alex Slavenko, Editor An update on Scaponopselaphus Scheerpeltz (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) with the description of three new species, and a key to the species PONE-D-25-05254R1 Dear Dr. Klemann-Junior, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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. Kind regards, Alex Slavenko Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The manuscript has now been seen by one of the original reviewers, who confirmed that all of their comments have been adequately addressed. Based on the reviewer's opinion and my own reading of the manuscript, I agree that the manuscript can be accepted for publication. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326484.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Alex Slavenko, Editor PONE-D-25-05254R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Klemann-Junior, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Alex Slavenko Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326484.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .