Dear Dr. Raspé,

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,

Erika Kothe

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. 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.-->-->5. 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). -->-->6. 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-->--> -->-->Special Cases – Algae, plant fossils, etc.-->-->Please take this opportunity to be sure you have met all of our guidelines for new species. For submissions describing new species that do not have formal registries, please include a sub-section called “Nomenclature” in the Methods section using the following wording:-->-->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.-->-->The online version of this work is archived and available from the following digital repositories: PubMed Central, LOCKSS [author to insert names of any additional repositories where the work will be deposited].-->--> -->-->3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.-->--> -->-->4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: -->-->"O. Raspé: Mae Fah Luang University grant 641A01003, “Survey of edible fungi in dry dipterocarp forests of Chiang Mai Province, Thailand-->--> -->-->Komsit Wisitrassameewong: the Ecological Monitoring and Plant Specimen and Barcode References project P2250745, National Science and Technology Development Agency-->--> -->-->Slavomír Adamčík, Katarína Adamčíková: the Slovak Research and Development Agency projects APVV-15-0210 and APVV-20-0257."-->--> -->-->Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" -->-->If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. -->-->Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: -->-->"This work was financially supported by Mae Fah Luang University grant 641A01003, “Survey of edible -->-->fungi in dry dipterocarp forests of Chiang Mai Province, Thailand” to O. Raspé. Komsit -->-->Wisitrassameewong was supported by the Ecological Monitoring and Plant Specimen and Barcode -->-->References project P2250745, National Science and Technology Development Agency. The work of -->-->Slovak authors was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency projects APVV-15--->-->0210 and APVV-20-0257."-->--> -->-->We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. -->-->Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: -->-->"O. Raspé: Mae Fah Luang University grant 641A01003, “Survey of edible fungi in dry dipterocarp forests of Chiang Mai Province, Thailand-->--> -->-->Komsit Wisitrassameewong: the Ecological Monitoring and Plant Specimen and Barcode References project P2250745, National Science and Technology Development Agency-->--> -->-->Slavomír Adamčík, Katarína Adamčíková: the Slovak Research and Development Agency projects APVV-15-0210 and APVV-20-0257."-->--> -->-->Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->6. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.-->--> -->-->Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).-->--> -->-->For example, authors should submit the following data:-->--> -->-->- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;-->-->- The values used to build graphs;-->-->- The points extracted from images for analysis.-->--> -->-->Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.-->--> -->-->If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.-->--> -->-->If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.-->--> -->-->7. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.-->--> -->-->8. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.-->--> -->-->9. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.-->--> -->-->10. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 and 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.-->--> -->-->11. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.-->?>

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers give important and helpfult comments that need to be addressed.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manucript dealing with the diversity of green cracking Russulas and the formal description of a new commonly eaten species with major economical improtance is a valuable contribution that will in the future help to ensure food safety.

Please pay careful attention to unify formatting styles within the manuscript, especially regarding the two provided species descriptions.

An annotated manuscript file with specific comments is attached.

Reviewer #2: The paper by Wisitrassameewong et al. addresses the diversity of commercially valued Russula species within the Virescentinae lineage. Previous studies introduced considerable uncertainties by applying European species names to Asian collections. This study aims to clarify the taxonomy of Thai collections and includes the description of a novel species, Russula orientalovirescens, which is clearly distinct from the European Russula virescens.

At first glance, the study appears to be well-conducted, with adequate sampling and the application of standard phylogenetic methods. Notably, the authors included an analysis of environmental sequences, providing valuable insights into the distribution of the newly described R. orientalovirescens. The results are thoroughly discussed and compared with the current state-of-the-art literature.

However, several issues were raised during the review process:

Introduction and Hypotheses: The information provided in the Introduction does not clearly lead to the stated hypotheses. While the hypotheses and aims of the study are scientifically sound, they require clearer and more precise formulation.

Inconsistencies in Specimen Presentation: There is significant inconsistency in the documentation of the specimens analyzed for the newly described R. orientalovirescens. The authors stated that four specimens were analyzed, yet:

Only two specimens are listed in Table 1.

Three specimens are depicted in the phylogenetic trees.

Table 2 showcases the morphological variability of three specimens, including specimen OR1607, which is not listed in Table 1 or shown in the phylogenetic trees.

This raises concerns about whether the identity of OR1607 was molecularly confirmed. I strongly encourage the authors to include specimen OR1607 in an additional phylogenetic analysis.

Sequencing Effort: According to Table 1, only one specimen of R. orientalovirescens (OR1687) had multiple genetic regions sequenced. This contrasts with the more extensive sequencing efforts for European collections of R. mustelina and R. virescens. Similar efforts should be applied to R. orientalovirescens to ensure consistency and robustness of the analyses.

Terminology and Descriptions: Terminology and species descriptions should be more consistent throughout the manuscript (see detailed comments in the attached file).

References: The references require a thorough review for accuracy and completeness.

Additional minor comments and suggestions are included in the attached file.

**********

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

**********

[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-24-43558_EDIT.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Summary of Comments on PONE-D-24-43558_reviewer.pdf

Russula orientalovirescens sp. nov., a common Southeast Asian edible fungus is different from the European look-alike R. virescens

PONE-D-24-43558R1

Dear Dr. Raspé,

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,

Erika Kothe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, thank you for addressing the proposed changes. I consider this research a valuable contribution to the knowledge on the diversity of the genus Russula in Thailand.

Reviewer #2: All my comments were properly addressed and manuscript was improved accordingly. I still recommend thorough review of the manuscript for small typos, but other than that I do not have any other comments

**********

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

**********