Patterns of Diversity of Floral Symmetry in Angiosperms: A Case Study of the Order Apiales

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Nuraliev et al. have presented an interesting review of the diversity of floral symmetry in Apiales with a focus on the interesting floral patterns unique to Araliaceae. They found interesting evolutionary transitions that only occurred in Araliaceae related to the extreme increase of merism in the gynoecium. And they summarized all types of floral symmetry in different whorls of the flowers in this order. This work is a crucial case study to understand the diversity of floral symmetry in a big group of angiosperms.

 

Specific comments:

 

1. Strictly, the disymmetric ground plan 1a, especially the flower of Tupidanthus, is not dissymmetric. It looks like asymmetric without a fixed pattern.

 

2. The published work “Zhang J, Stevens PF, Zhang W (2017) Evolution of floral zygomorphy in androecium and corolla in Solanaceae. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 55 (6):581-590.” also suggests the independent evolution of the floral symmetry in the androecium and gynoecium, which is relevant to this work.

 

3. There is no material and methods section for this research article. 

 

4. Line 221, typo “orietned”

Author Response

The response is attached as a Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The main purpose of this manuscript was to describe a more detailed system for classifying floral symmetry.  As they point out, the basic classification of radial or bilateral symmetry does not encompass the diversity of floral forms.  They used Apiales as a study group, as these plants have a very diverse array of floral symmetries.  This work highlights some of the challenges of classifying floral shape, such as the changes which occur over development, the need to observe all floral whorls, and whether ovule fertility matters when determining symmetry.  This was a very detailed manuscript and was generally very well presented.  I have a few suggestions to refine the manuscript (see below).

 

1.       Little was presented on other floral classification systems, other than mentioning that the broad categories of bilateral and radial are insufficient.  A brief overview of other systems would be useful. 

 

2.       There is no methods section for the images presented.  The images are of very good quality and it would be helpful to know how they were obtained and where the floral samples are from. 

 

3.       There is some repetition of phrases between the abstract and background sections.  For example, lines 11 and 61 are quite similar.  Please rework some of the phrases. 

 

4.       It would be interesting to include a proposed phylogeny showing the old and new floral symmetry classifications. 

 

5.       Do the authors feel their floral shape classification/description system would be widely applicable to other floral forms?  What are some limitations? 

Author Response

The respose is attached as a Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc