Phylogenetic Trends in the Dissymmetrisation of Genitalia in Hadenini (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

line 133, replace the second B with C

line 287, a point is missing

316-319, perhaps a verb missing

Author Response

Many thanks for the review.

I made all the necessary changes suggested by the Reviewer I., in details:

Line 133 - In the Fig. 3 the B was changed to C

Line 287 - the missing point was added

Lines 316-319 - the wording was changed according to the suggestion

All changes in the text were marked in yellow colour

Reviewer 2 Report

In times of rapidly evolving visual technology, the genital structures of moths and other characteristics of internal morphology come again to the first place of scientific significance.  The manuscript presents strong evidence of a phenomenon which is one of the driving factors in the evolutionary diversity of moths: desymmetrisation of the internal structures. 

For me, it is fine that the authors stick to the habitual use of morphological parts in Noctuidae genitalia and do not follow blindly the general suggestions of Kristensen (2003). The enormous diversity and very complex evolutionary history of internal genital morphology cannot provide the terminology 'one fits all'. 

One recommendation for future approaches is that the authors should look more attentively and possibly give a more detailed explanation of how their morphological evolutionary findings fit the phylogenetic trees that we have in Noctuidae. There was only a very short mention in the article of COI data, but as we know, the reflection of phylogenetic processes by only COI is only partly. It is just a matter of interest to the reader whether gene expression and morphological diversity of asymmetrical genitalia structures coincide.        

Please check the title very attentively:

I have doubts whether the word 'dissymmetrisation' is correct.  Probably it is better to use 'desymmetrisation' which means not  symmetrical any more [e replaces i in prefix and one s in the word 'symmetry' ] I could also suggest using the broadly understood term 'asymmetry' or 'asymmetrisation'.

Author Response

Reviewer: "For me, it is fine that the authors stick to the habitual use of morphological parts in Noctuidae genitalia and do not follow blindly the general suggestions of Kristensen (2003). The enormous diversity and very complex evolutionary history of internal genital morphology cannot provide the terminology 'one fits all'. "

I readily agree with this opinion! As a consequence of the "enormous diversity" in Noctuids' genital morphology, I followed in the morpho-terminology of most recent sources on Holarctic Noctuidae taxonomy (see: References 4, 21-25).

Reviewer: "recommendation for future approaches" ...

I will follow this important suggestion. The question, whether gene expression and morphological diversity of asymmetrical genitalia structures do coincide – this is a very constructive suggestion for further research, indeed. The other side of the coin, however: it was mentioned that we don’t any molecular genetic information on most Central and East Asiatic species of Hadeninae genera concerned here. 

Linguistic suggestion of the Reviewer on "dissymmetry" and dissymmetrisation

I would like to conserv these therms for at least two reasons:

The word „desimmetry” is used in design in a completely different sense, see: https://www.desymmetry.com/. It means that the use this term will result in misunderstandings.

According to Collins: Dissymmety in UK English: „Derived forms, dissymmetrical, adjective, or dissymmetric”. The term was used in our publication essentially in this sense. Dissymmetry is a "derived form" indeed, an apomorphy, opposed to the plesiomorphic symmetric structures. Therefore I could not find any arguments supporting any change of wording.