Average rating: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of importance: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of validity: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of completeness: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of comprehensibility: | Rated 3 of 5. |
Competing interests: | None |
The arguments made in the manuscript about the synonym relationship between Pseliodinium (Gomez 2018) and the newly proposed genus Torquentidium (Shin et al. 2019) are well supported and convincing. This includes the unreliability (or even unsuitability) of the displacement of cigulum and the small difference found as well as the phylogenetic affiliation in the tight cluster.
Naked dinoflagellates have posed a great challenge for taxonomy, but the rapid advances in analysis tools, particularly DNA sequencing, has ushered in a flourish era of taxonomy. It is nice to see increasing resolution of previously ambiguous or confusing lineages. But I would, following the point that this manuscript is making, encourage cautions in erecting new taxa without complete information incorporating morphological and molecular analyses as well as ecological attributes. In so doing, a coherent genetic distance measure should be attempted, although a measure suitable for one lineage may not apply to another. Nomenclature should be given greater reservation too. Taxonomy should aim to be helpful for ecologists and other groups of biologists.
Meanwhile, I suggest Dr. Gomez to tighten languages and tones in the manuscript to stay objective and cool. And the title can be more focused on the particular genera of interest.