Taxonomy and an Updated Phylogeny of Anomoloma (Amylocorticiales, Basidiomycota)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors and editor,
Here is the review of the paper titled "Taxonomy and an updated phylogeny of Anomoloma (Amylocorticiales, Basidiomycota) submitted by Meng Zhou & co-authors.
The paper aims to describe two species of wood-decaying fungal genus Anomoloma as new to science, based on morphological and molecular characters. In addition phylogeny of the whole genus is analyzed based on ITS and LSU sequences and the taxonomy of lineages/species was commented. Both new species are morphologically well analyzed and described and micro-characters of their basidiomata are presented by line drawings. New species are taxonomically well delimited from related species in the genus. Morphological characters of all recognized Anomoloma species are presented in the table.
Authors followed the newest International code of nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. The descriptions and molecular analysis used in the study are well done. I have corrected the English language in some parts of the text to be more clear. In the submission version of the abstract, there is one additional sentence "A key to accepted species of Anomoloma worldwide is provided." It would be very good to provide a key to Anomoloma species worldwide in addition to the species comparison table. Please include the key in the text.
All suggested corrections/additions are included in the attached review of the manuscript file (pdf).
Best, Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are very grateful to you for your patient modifications and comments on our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript with the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word according to all the comments. The responses to the comments were listed below.
Comment 1: In submission version of the abstract there is one additional sentence "A key to accepted species of Anomoloma worldwide is provided." It would be very good to provide key to Anomoloma species worldwide in addition to species comparison table. Please include the key in the text.
R: It is done.
Comment 2: Please describe PCR protocol briefly here.
R: It is done.
Comment 3: Please use better resolution quality phylogram for final publication, since taxa names and booststrap values are not easily visible in this one.
R: We have separately uploaded high-quality drawings into the system when we uploaded the manuscript.
Best wishes!
Yours,
Meng Zhou and co-workers
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction too short by not emphasizing the importance of identification and this fungus. In materials and methods little use of scientific terminology.
L15: Change from with “in”.
L16: Change “ Anomoloma denticulatum” with “A. denticulatum”.
L19: Change “species of Anomoloma” with “species that belong to Anomoloma genus”.
L22: Change “ Anomoloma eurasiaticum” with “A. eurasiaticum”.
L26: The introduction is too short you should discuss more about the importance of fungal identification and justify why the work was done on this fungus. In particular I will emphasize the importance of fungal identification by molecular versus morphological methodology.
L29: Add a comma after cream.
L39: Change “exploration on polypores in east” with “exploration of polypores in the East”.
L42, L66: Change analyzed with analysed.
L44: Add a comma after meanwhile.
L47: Change studied with analysed.
L49: Change “Macro-morphology” with “Macromorphology”.
L51: Change ae with at, value with values. Delete comma after excluded.
L52-L55: I did not understand nothing between this rows.
L56: How much sample did you analyse?
L58: Change “applied in obtain PCR” with “applied in obtaining PCR”.
L59: Change adjustment with adjustments.
L60: Add “the” before ITS. Specify which region of ITS did you amplify?
L61-L62: Change “used for nLSU (large subunit of nuclear ribosomal RNA gene)” with “used for the LSU region (Large Subunit of nuclear ribosomal RNA gene).
L62: Delete “region followed Hopple and Vilgalys”.
L63: Change “cycling schedule” with “thermoprofile”.
L69, L75: Tables and figures that contain results should be described and placed in the results session.
L71: Change “New sequences were aligned with other sequences by BioEdit” with “The obtained sequences were aligned by BioEdit”.
L82, L85: Change nLSU with LSU.
L225: Change Czechia with Czech.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We are very grateful to you for your patient modifications and comments on our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript with the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word according to all the comments. The responses to the comments were listed below.
L15: Change from with “in”.
R: It is done.
L16: Change “ Anomoloma denticulatum” with “A. denticulatum”.
R: It is done.
L19: Change “species of Anomoloma” with “species that belong to Anomoloma genus”.
R: It is done.
L22: Change “ Anomoloma eurasiaticum” with “A. eurasiaticum”.
R: We prefer to the full genus name when it firstly appeared in each sentence, and the same genus is abbreviated in this sentence.
L26: The introduction is too short you should discuss more about the importance of fungal identification and justify why the work was done on this fungus. In particular I will emphasize the importance of fungal identification by molecular versus morphological methodology.
R: We have added some text in the introduction.
L29: Add a comma after cream.
R: It is done.
L39: Change “exploration on polypores in east” with “exploration of polypores in the East”.
R: It is done.
L42, L66: Change analyzed with analysed.
R: It is done.
L44: Add a comma after meanwhile.
R: It is done.
L47: Change studied with analysed.
R: It is done.
L49: Change “Macro-morphology” with “Macromorphology”.
R: It is done.
L51: Change ae with at, value with values. Delete comma after excluded.
R: It is done.
L52-L55: I did not understand nothing between this rows.
R: This section explains the meaning of the data abbreviations used in the “Taxonomy” section below.
L56: How much sample did you analyse?
R: A phylogeny based on the combined ITS and LSU DNA sequence data was analysed with a total of 44 specimens including 20 species of Anomoloma related genera.
L58: Change “applied in obtain PCR” with “applied in obtaining PCR”.
R: It is done.
L59: Change adjustment with adjustments.
R: It is done.
L60: Add “the” before ITS. Specify which region of ITS did you amplify?
R: It is done. The ITS (the internal transcribed spacer) region included ITS1, partial sequence; 5.8S ribosomal RNA gene, complete sequence; and ITS2, partial sequence
L61-L62: Change “used for nLSU (large subunit of nuclear ribosomal RNA gene)” with “used for the LSU region (Large Subunit of nuclear ribosomal RNA gene).
R: It is done.
L62: Delete “region followed Hopple and Vilgalys”.
R: We prefer to accept the advice from reviewer 2 as keep this information and change to “following Hopple and Vilgalys”.
L63: Change “cycling schedule” with “thermoprofile”.
R: It is done.
L69, L75: Tables and figures that contain results should be described and placed in the results session.
R: We prefer to place the table after the first mentioned.
L71: Change “New sequences were aligned with other sequences by BioEdit” with “The obtained sequences were aligned by BioEdit”.
R: It is done.
L82, L85: Change nLSU with LSU.
R: It is done.
L225: Change Czechia with Czech.
R: One of our author Josef prefer to use Czechia than Czech.
Best wishes!
Yours,
Meng Zhou and co-workers
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find manuscript pdf with a few additional improvements attached.
Best wishes, Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are very grateful to you for your patient modifications and comments on our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript with the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word according to all the comments.
Best wishes!
Meng Zhou and co-workers
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest to improve the introduction.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are very grateful to you for your patience on our manuscript. Introcuction was modified again in the manuscript with the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.
Best wishes!
Meng Zhou and co-workers
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
