Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time

Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308" }, "headline": "Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent...", "datePublished": "2022-03-14T12:22:32", "dateModified": "2025-02-14T15:10:05", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Soichi Osozawa" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "John Wakabayashi" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "We developed a new time-calibrated phylogenetic tree incorporating primarily endemic Ryukyu Islands cicada data, along with some cryptic species, following the recent global cicada studies by Marshall et al. (2018), Łukasik et al. (2018), Simon et al. (2019), Price et al. (2019), and Hill et al. (2021). A total of 352 specimens were analyzed using BEAST v1.10.4 software with a relaxed clock model. Fossil calibrations dating as far back as the Triassic were adopted, largely following Johnson et al. (2018) and Moulds (2018), with a Quaternary geological event calibration based on Osozawa et al. (2012, 2021b), which was input into BEAST v1.10.4. In the COI tree, the crown age of Cicadoidea was estimated at 200.63 Ma. Tettigarctidae was found to be the oldest lineage, sister to all remaining cicadas. Derotettiginae, at 99.2 Ma, is the next oldest lineage, sister to all other monophyletic cicadas. The Tibicininae clade branched at 66.15 Ma, with the subfamilies Tettigomyiinae, Cicadettinae, and Cicadidae diverging at a crown age of 40.57 Ma. The Cicadinae clade consists of many tribe and genus-specific clades, with numerous cryptic species emerging due to vicariance and adaptive radiation. We estimated the base substitution rate as a function of age, and the results strongly indicate an exponential increase in substitution rates during recent geological time. This increase in cicada biodiversity, including the generation of cryptic species in the Ryukyu Islands and surrounding regions, may have been driven by the spread of C4 grasses and concurrent Quaternary climate changes." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308", "name": "Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing..." } } ] } Home Browse Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Osozawa S and Wakabayashi J. Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.5 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Soichi Osozawa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5554-1320 1 , John Wakabayashi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5690-3426 2 Soichi Osozawa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5554-1320 1 , John Wakabayashi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5690-3426 2 PUBLISHED 14 Feb 2025 Author details Author details 1 Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 2 California State University, Fresno, Fresno, USA Soichi Osozawa Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation John Wakabayashi Roles: Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Bioinformatics gateway. Abstract We developed a new time-calibrated phylogenetic tree incorporating primarily endemic Ryukyu Islands cicada data, along with some cryptic species, following the recent global cicada studies by Marshall et al. (2018), Łukasik et al. (2018), Simon et al. (2019), Price et al. (2019), and Hill et al. (2021). A total of 352 specimens were analyzed using BEAST v1.10.4 software with a relaxed clock model. Fossil calibrations dating as far back as the Triassic were adopted, largely following Johnson et al. (2018) and Moulds (2018), with a Quaternary geological event calibration based on Osozawa et al. (2012, 2021b), which was input into BEAST v1.10.4. In the COI tree, the crown age of Cicadoidea was estimated at 200.63 Ma. Tettigarctidae was found to be the oldest lineage, sister to all remaining cicadas. Derotettiginae, at 99.2 Ma, is the next oldest lineage, sister to all other monophyletic cicadas. The Tibicininae clade branched at 66.15 Ma, with the subfamilies Tettigomyiinae, Cicadettinae, and Cicadidae diverging at a crown age of 40.57 Ma. The Cicadinae clade consists of many tribe and genus-specific clades, with numerous cryptic species emerging due to vicariance and adaptive radiation. We estimated the base substitution rate as a function of age, and the results strongly indicate an exponential increase in substitution rates during recent geological time. This increase in cicada biodiversity, including the generation of cryptic species in the Ryukyu Islands and surrounding regions, may have been driven by the spread of C4 grasses and concurrent Quaternary climate changes. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords fossil calibration, geological event calibration, exponentially increase, base substitution rate, increased biodiversity, cryptic species, ice age, C4 grasses Corresponding Author(s) Soichi Osozawa ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Soichi Osozawa Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Osozawa S and Wakabayashi J. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Osozawa S and Wakabayashi J. Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.5 ) First published: 14 Mar 2022, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.1 ) Latest published: 14 Feb 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.5 ) Revised Amendments from Version 4 We rewrote the abstract following the suggestions of Christopher H. Dietrich. We rewrote the abstract following the suggestions of Christopher H. Dietrich. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jacek Szwedo See the authors' detailed response to the review by Sungsik Kong See the authors' detailed response to the review by David A Duchêne READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction A phylogenetic tree of worldwide cicada was recently constructed by Marshall et al. (2018) and Simon et al. (2019) applying five concatenated sequences of mitochondrial COI and COII, and nuclear ARD1, EF-1a, and 18S rRNA, and by Łukasik et al. (2019) applying whole mitochondrial sequences for representative species in Marshall et al. (2018) , and family level phylogenetic relation has been clarified. Although Tettigarctinae is an old diverged lineage and Derotettiginae may be next, their worldwide phylogenetic trees were not dated trees. Price et al. (2019; restricted to Platypleurini) and Hill et al. (2021; restricted to Asian Cicadinae) built partial (not worldwide) dated trees using BEAST v.2.5 ( Bouckaert et al. 2014 ) applying COI and other sequences, but much of global cicada evolution has not been tied to absolute time. The latest version of BEAST (Bayesian Evolutionary Analysis Sampling Trees v1. X; v1.10.4 2021; Suchard et al. 2018 ) released on 10 June 2018 has a clear and simple age calibration protocol and function, updated from BEAST v.1. 7 (v1. X ≒ v.1. 8). This calibration involves applying times of the most recent common ancestors (tMRCAs) of the ingroup species, i.e., applying the node age of a specific clade as a minimum age, in the associated software of BEAUti (Bayesian Evolutionary Analysis Utility; BEAST is the platform software). The maximum age constraint normally considered in MCMCtree (4.9e 2017; Yang 2007 ) was not clearly defined ( Benton & Donoghue 2007 ; Marshall 2008 ; Hill et al. 2021 ), and simply handled by ignoring the maximum age in BEAST v.1. X calibration ( Osozawa & Wakabayashi 2021 ; Osozawa et al. 2021a ). We sought the oldest fossil of the corresponding node of specific clade with an assumption that the oldest fossil age was equivalent to the minimum age and equivalent to “tMRCA” in BEAST v1. X. Moulds (2018) reviewed the ages of cicada fossils. These redefined ages, ranging from 16.45 ± 0.45 Ma to 244.5 ± 2.5 Ma, were available for our fossil-based time calibrations in BEAST v1. X. Klopfstein (2021) suggested that recent node dating approaches including Misof et al. (2014) and Montagna et al. (2019) have a credibility problem: different studies using the same molecular data and even the same sets of fossils regularly arrive at drastically different age estimates. She showed that a major reason for these differences is well known: even well-dated and firmly placed fossils can only provide a minimum age for a particular node. Therefore our fossil calibration applying solely minimum age (= tMRCA) was credible. As shown by Osozawa et al. (2017a) , Platypleura and some other endemic cicadas in Ryukyu Islands can be rigidly calibrated by a geological event calibration at 1.55 ± 0.15 Ma (Quaternary; Osozawa et al. 2012 ). As shown by Osozawa et al. (2021a) , Meimuna opalifera and some other endemic cicadas on Hachijo-jima, Izu-Bonin islands, can be calibrated by a geological event calibration of emergent age at 0.24 Ma (Quaternary; Osozawa et al. 2021b ). Through these analyses, we corroborated the classification and some rearrangement of species into four subfamilies of Tibicininae, Tettigomyiinae, Cicadettinae, and Cicadinae included in a family Cicadidae by Marshall et al. (2018) and Łukasik et al. (2018) , and then estimated the splitting dates of these subfamilies, tribes (especially Cicadinae tribes after Hill et al. 2021 ), and species ( Figures 1 – 3 ). In the BEAST analyses, we included Derotettix , a relict species of new subfamily Derotettiginae with the oldest lineage in family Cicadidae ( Simon et al. 2019 ), and attempted to estimate the crown age ( Figure 2 ). Comparison to the entire Hemipteroid insect timetree ( Johnson et al. , 2018 ) and entire insect timetree ( Misof et al. 2014 ) could be conducted as an extension of this analysis, by adding other Hemiptera species as outgroup ( Figures 1 – 3 ). Figure 1. Simplified cicada timetree built by BEAST v1.X, applying a 1,534 bp in maximum COI sequence. Inserted figure: Base substitution rate (= rate median shown at each node; substitutions per site per million year; s/s/myr) vs age (= posterior age shown at each node) diagram. Red approximate curve with its formula was drawn by an Excel function, with the intersection for the curve = 0.0128 s/s/myr, the rate median shown on Tracer. Figure 2. Cicada timetree built by BEAST v1.X, applying 1,534 bp COI sequence. OUTs with isolate number: our own analyzed specimens shown in Table 1 , and others: from GenBank/DDJB. In outgroup Hemiptera; #: analyzed family by Johnson et al. (2018) ; % analyzed family by Misof et al. (2014). Inserted figure: Base substitution rate (= rate median shown at each node; substitutions per site per million year; s/s/myr) vs age (= posterior age shown at each node) diagram. Red approximate curve with its formula was drawn by Excel function, with the intersection for the curve = 0.0128 s/s/myr, the rate median shown on Tracer. Figure 3. Cicada timetree built by BEAST v1.X, applying 1,534 bp COI and 874 bp 18S rRNA sequences. OUTs with isolate number: our own analyzed specimens shown in Table 1 , and others: from GenBank/DDJB. In outgroup Hemiptera; #: analyzed family by Johnson et al. (2018) ; % analyzed family by Misof et al. (2014) . Inserted figure: Base substitution rate (= rate median shown at each node; substitutions per site per million year; s/s/myr) vs age (= posterior age shown at each node) diagram. Red approximate curve with its formula was drawn by Excel function, with the intersection for the curve = 0.0114 s/s/myr, the rate median shown on Tracer. Note that this rate is a little slower than that solely of COI in Figures 1 and 2 , reflecting slower rate of 18S rRNA than COI (see Osozawa et al. 2017a ). Our primary goal was to present the precise evolutionary history of all cicadas by constructing the BEAST timetree, and also taxonomic reconsiderations for Cicadinae tribes after Hill et al. (2021) and for Ryukyu endemic cicadas. Another BEAST v1. X function facilitates additional evaluation of the time variability of base substitution rates. Recent dating analyses employ a relaxed clock model, which allows each branch of a phylogenetic tree to have its own evolutionary rate ( Drummond et al. 2012 ). Although the relaxed distribution can be set to lognormal in BEAUti, the rate of variability has not been documented prior to this study. The output figure of BEAST v1. X presents the base substitution rate and age at each node, and shows the acceleration of base substitution rates through the time. Methods Ethical approval The present study did not concerned invertebrate experiments and did not involve endangered or protected species. We obtained permission of collection in the Taroko National Park, Taiwan, from the director (No. 0990012881; August 1 ~ 11, 2010), with a help of Bor-ming Jahn, and permission of collection in the Tokara islands, from the Toshima village headman, from August 29 ~ September 8, 2010. Collection in the Ryukyu islands was before the designation of National Park since 2016. No specific permission was required outside the national parks and private areas. Taxon sampling Marshall et al. (2018) , Simon et al. (2019) , Łukasik et al. (2019) included comparatively few Asian cicada species in their analyses. We have previously published 70 isolate data from Platypleura primarily from the Japan, Ryukyu, and Taiwan islands ( Osozawa et al. 2017a ; our aim was the vicarince acted on each island population started at 1.55 Ma and the cryptic speciation), and 21 of these data were used in the present analyses by excluding duplicated sequence data. We also collected and analyzed cicada specimens, adding isolate data from 92 specimens. Accordingly, our own data total 21 + 92 = 113 specimens ( Table 1 ). Note that we collected all the 35 species from Japan including the Ryukyu Islands, but excepting severely protected Platypleura albivannata (see Osozawa et al. 2017a ; may be extinct without DNA sequence data) and Meimuna boninensis (see Osozawa et al. 2021a ). Table 1. Cicada species collected and analyzed in this paper. Specimens were mostly from the Ryukyu Islands. isolate country species accession no. COI accession no. 18SrRNA collection date collected by pp44a South Korea:Busan Platypleura. kaempferi (Fabricius, 1794) AB897523 LC086120 LC086191 13-07-2011 Soichi Osozawa pp53 Japan: Honshu,Tobi-shima Platypleura. kaempferi (Fabricius, 1794) LC086279 LC086066 LC086137 31-07-2014 Soichi Osozawa pp54 China: Zhejiang Platypleura kaempferi (Fabricius, 1794) LC086280 LC086067 LC086138 13-08-2014 Akira Mishima pp26a Taiwan:Yangmingshan park Platypleura kaempferi (Fabricius, 1794) AB897530 LC086092 LC086163 07-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa pp6R Japan:Ryukyu, Ishigaki-jima Platypleura yayeyamana Matsumura, 1917 AB897534 LC086072 LC086143 05-07-2010 Soichi Osozawa pp21 Japan:Ryukyu, Ishigaki-jima Platypleura yayeyamana Matsumura, 1917 AB897535 LC086085 LC086156 05-07-2010 Soichi Osozawa pp27 Japan:Ryukyu, Iriomote-jima Platypleura yayeyamana Matsumura, 1917 AB897540 LC086096 LC086167 14-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa pp9R Japan:Ryukyu, Miyako-jima Platypleura miyakona (Matsumura, 1917) AB897557 LC086073 LC086144 03-07-2011 Soichi Osozawa pp3 Taiwan:Taipei, Entsu-ji Platypleura takasagona Matsumura, 1917 AB897556 LC086071 LC086142 27-05-2012 Shusuke Osozawa pp40a Japan:Ryukyu, Amami-Oshima Platypleura kaempferi Matsumura, 1917 AB897542 LC086115 LC086186 07-07-2013 Soichi Osozawa pp15d Japan:Ryukyu, Tokuno-shima Platypleura kaempferi Matsumura, 1917 AB897548 LC086083 LC086154 02-07-2012 Soichi Osozawa pp32 Japan:Ryukyu, Okinawa-jima Platypleura kaempferi Matsumura, 1917 AB897561 LC086103 LC086174 20-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa pp10b Japan:Ryukyu, Kume-jima Platypleura kuroiwae Matsumura, 1917 AB897563 LC086075 LC086146 23-06-2012 Soichi Osozawa pp13b Japan:Ryukyu, Okinawa-jima Platypleura kuroiwae Matsumura, 1917 AB897562 LC086079 LC086150 22-06-2010 Soichi Osozawa pp15d Japan:Ryukyu, Tokuno-shima Platypleura kuroiwae Matsumura, 1917 AB897565 LC086080 LC086151 02-07-2012 Soichi Osozawa pp23 Japan:Ryukyu, Amami-Oshima Platypleura. kuroiwae Matsumura, 1917 AB897566 LC086087 LC086158 23-06-2010 Soichi Osozawa pp35a Japan:Ryukyu, Okinoerabu-jima Platypleura kuroiwae Matsumura, 1917 AB897569 LC086108 LC086179 28-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa pp42 Japan:Ryukyu, Amami-Oshima Platypleura kuroiwae Matsumura, 1917 AB897567 LC086117 LC086188 09-07-2013 Soichi Osozawa pp20 Tailand:Chiang Rai Platypleura nobilis (Germar, 1830) AB897581 LC086133 LC086204 05-08-2008 Tetsuo Miyashita pp1 Philippine:Babuyan island Platypleura hilpa Walker, 1850 AB897582 LC086134 LC086205 05-07-2011 Kei Nishiguro pp56a Philippine:Luzon island, Mt. Mayon Platypleura hilpa Walker, 1850 (AB897582) LC086135 LC086206 05-04-2014 Kei Nishiguro kum25 Japan:Ryukyu, Amami-Oshima Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466803 LC466820 05-07-2018 Kenichi Kanai kum27A Japan:Ryukyu, Amami-Oshima Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466804 LC466821 06-07-2018 Kenichi Kanai kum4 Japan:Ryukyu, Kume-jima Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466805 LC466822 05-07-2014 Fumiyasu Sato kum29A Japan:Ryukyu, Okinawa-jima, Minna-jima Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466806 LC466823 28-06-2018 Satoru Nitta kum15 Japan:Ryukyu, Miyako-jima Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466807 LC466824 04-07-2011 Soichi Osozawa kum9 Japan:Ryukyu, Tarama-jima Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466808 LC466825 14-06-2016 Soichi Osozawa kum19 Japan:Ryukyu, Ishigaki-jima Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466809 LC466826 26-06-2017 Hiroshi Irino kum33 Japan:Ryukyu, Kuro-shima Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466810 LC466827 18-07-2018 Soichi Osozawa kum36A Japan:Ryukyu, Iriomote-jima Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466811 LC466828 07-09-2018 Hiroshi Irino kum18 Japan:Ryukyu, Yonaguni-jima, Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466812 LC466829 10-07-2019 Minoru Saijo kum21 Japan: Honshu,Itami Cryptotympana facialis (Walker, 1858) LC466813 LC466830 21-07-2018 Soichi Osozawa kum34 Taiwan:Wulai Cryptotympana holsti Distant, 1904 LC466814 LC466831 04-07-2018 Soichi Osozawa kum1 China: HongKong Cryptotympana mandarina Distant, 1891 LC466815 LC466832 29-05-2013 Soichi Osozawa kum12 Taiwan:Taipei Zoo Cryptotympana takasagona Kato, 1925 LC466816 LC466833 28-08-2016 Soichi Osozawa kum3 South Korea:Busan Cryptotympana atrata (Fabricius, 1775) LC466817 LC466834 12-07-2013 Soichi Osozawa kum5 China: Zhejiang Cryptotympana atrata (Fabricius, 1775) LC466818 LC466835 13-08-2013 Akira Mishima abr5 Japan: Honshu,Sabusawa-shima Graptopsaltria nigrofuscata (Motschulsky, 1866) LC466819 LC466836 30-07-2013 Soichi Osozawa N-ec1 Japan:Ryukyu,Minami Daito-jima Euterpnosia chibensis daitoensis Matsumura, 1917 LC508809 LC508884 05-04-2012 Ryosuke Sadaki S-ec2 Taiwan:Tailuko Euterpnosia olivacea Kato, 1927 LC508810 LC508885 2010,8.8 Soichi Osozawa S-ec3 Japan:Ryukyu,Yonaguni-jima Euterpnosia iwasakii (Matsumura, 1913) LC508811 LC508886 29-06-2011 Soichi Osozawa S-ec4a Japan:Ryukyu,Ishigaki-jima Euterpnosia iwasakii (Matsumura, 1913) LC508812 LC508887 25-06-2011 Soichi Osozawa N-ec5a Japan:Ryukyu,Kume-jima Euterpnosia chibensis okinawana Ishihara, 1968 LC508813 LC508888 23-06-2012 Soichi Osozawa N-ec6a Japan:Ryukyu,Okinawa-jima Euterpnosia chibensis okinawana Ishihara, 1968 LC508814 LC508889 25-06-2010 Soichi Osozawa N-ec6a-2 Japan:Ryukyu,Okinawa-jima Euterpnosia chibensis okinawana Ishihara, 1968 LC508815 LC508890 25-06-2010 Soichi Osozawa N-ec7a Japan:Ryukyu,Tokuno-shima Euterpnosia chibensis Matsumura, 1917 LC508816 LC508891 02-07-2012 Soichi Osozawa N-ec7b Japan:Ryukyu,Tokuno-shima Euterpnosia chibensis Matsumura, 1917 LC508817 LC508892 02-07-2012 Soichi Osozawa N-ec8a Japan:Ryukyu,Amami Oshima Euterpnosia chibensis Matsumura, 1917 LC508818 LC508893 28-06-2010 Soichi Osozawa N-ec9 Japan:Honshu,Kochi Euterpnosia chibensis Matsumura, 1917 LC508819 LC508894 01-08-2011 Soichi Osozawa S-ec10 Taiwan:Hualien Euterpnosia viridifrons Matsumura, 1917 LC508820 LC508895 04-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa S-ec12a Taiwan:Yanhmungshan Euterpnosia gina Kato, 1931 LC508821 LC508896 07-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa S-ec13 Japan:Ryukyu,Ishigaki-jima Euterpnosia iwasakii (Matsumura, 1913) LC508822 LC508897 15-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa N-ec14-1 Japan:Ryukyu,Ihaya-jima Euterpnosia chibensis okinawana Ishihara, 1968 LC508823 LC508898 21-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa N-ec15 Japan:Ryukyu,Okinoerabu-jima Euterpnosia chibensis okinawana Ishihara, 1968 LC508824 LC508899 28-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa N-ec17-1 Japan:Ryukyu,Amamai Oshima Euterpnosia chibensis Matsumura, 1917 LC508825 LC508900 09-07-2013 Soichi Osozawa N-ec18a Japan:Kyushu,Kagoshima Euterpnosia chibensis Matsumura, 1917 LC508826 LC508901 03-08-2013 Heruhiko Fukuda et al ec19 China:Anhui Euterpnosia sp. LC508827 LC508902 10-06-2013 Akira Mishima min-mn2 Japan:Ryukyu,Yonaguni-jima Mogannia minuta (Matsumura, 1907) LC508828 LC508903 29-06-2011 Soichi Osozawa min-mn3 Japan:Ryukyu,Ishigaki-jima Mogannia minuta (Matsumura, 1907) LC508829 LC508904 01-05-2010 Soichi Osozawa min-mn4 Japan:Ryukyu,N Iriomote-jima Mogannia minuta (Matsumura, 1907) LC508830 LC508905 30-04-2010 Soichi Osozawa min-mn5 Japan:Ryukyu,Miyako-jima Mogannia minuta (Matsumura, 1907) LC508831 LC508906 25-04-2011 Soichi Osozawa min-mn6 Japan:Ryukyu, Okinawa-jima, Tsuken-jima Mogannia minuta (Matsumura, 1907) LC508832 LC508907 06-06-2012 Satoru Nitta min-mn9a Japan:Ryukyu, Okinawa-jima, Yagachi-jima Mogannia minuta (Matsumura, 1907) LC508833 LC508908 11-05-2014 Atsuko Nitta min-mn10a Japan:Ryukyu,Okinawa-jima, Tamagusuku Mogannia minuta (Matsumura, 1907) LC508834 LC508909 30-05-2014 Ysushi Watanabe min-mn12a Japan:Ryukyu,Kohama-jima Mogannia minuta (Matsumura, 1907) LC508835 LC508910 06-07-2014 Soichi Osozawa min-mn14a Japan:Ryukyu,S Iriomote-jima Mogannia minuta (Matsumura, 1907) LC508836 LC508911 18-06-2016 Soichi Osozawa mn1B Taiwan:Hualien Mogannia formosana Matsumura, 1907 LC508837 LC508912 02-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa heb-mn2B Taiwan:Hualien Mogannia hebes Walker, 1858 LC508838 LC508913 02-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa heb-mn3B Taiwan:Hualien Mogannia hebes Walker, 1858 LC508839 LC508914 03-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa heb-mn5B Taiwan:Yangmingshan Mogannia hebes Walker, 1858 LC508840 LC508915 07-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa heb-mn6B Taiwan:Yangmei Mogannia hebes Walker, 1858 LC508841 LC508916 08-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa heb-mn7aB China:HongKong Mogannia hebes Walker, 1858 LC508842 LC508917 30-05-2013 Akira Mishima heb-mn13aB China:Hubei Mogannia hebes Walker, 1858 LC508843 LC508918 18-06-2014 Soichi Osozawa tuk1 Japan:Kyushu,Tsushima Meimuna opalifera (Walker, 1850) LC508844 LC508919 18-07-2013 Soichi Osozawa tuk2 Japan:Honshu,Okino-shima Meimuna opalifera (Walker, 1850) LC508845 LC508920 28-08-2013 Soichi Osozawa tuk3a Japan:Izu,Hachijo-jima Meimuna opalifera (Walker, 1850) LC508846 LC508921 16-07-2014 Soichi Osozawa tuk4 Japan:Tokara,Nakano-shima Meimuna opalifera (Walker, 1850) LC508847 LC508922 31-08-2010 Soichi Osozawa tuk5 Japan:Honshu,Sendai Meimuna opalifera (Walker, 1850) LC508848 LC508923 06-09-2014 Soichi Osozawa tuk6 China:Zhejiang Meimuna opalifera (Walker, 1850) LC508849 LC508924 13-08-2014 Soichi Osozawa tuk10 Japan:Kyushu,Yaku-shima Meimuna opalifera (Walker, 1850) LC508850 LC508925 11-10-2017 Haruo Fukuda tuk12 Taiwan:Taipei Meimuna opalifera (Walker, 1850) LC508851 LC508926 06-11-2017 Soichi Osozawa ohs1 Japan:Ryukyu,Okinawa-jima Meimuna oshimensis (Matsumura, 1905) LC508852 LC508927 23-06-2010 Soichi Osozawa ohs2 Japan:Ryukyu,Amami Oshima Meimuna oshimensis (Matsumura, 1905) LC508853 LC508928 09-09-2010 Soichi Osozawa ohs3a Japan:Ryukyu,Ishigaki-jima Meimuna iwasakii (Matsumura, 1913) LC508854 LC508929 05-09-2014 Tadafumi Nakada ohs4a Japan:Ryukyu,Kume-jima Meimuna oshimensis (Matsumura, 1905) LC508855 LC508930 15-08-2014 Soichi Osozawa ohs7a Japan:Ryukyu,Iheya-jima Meimuna oshimensis (Matsumura, 1905) LC508856 LC508930 18-09-2015 Soichi Osozawa kur1 Japan:Ryukyu,Amami Oshima Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508857 LC508931 09-09-2010 Soichi Osozawa kur2 Japan:Tokara,Takara-jima Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508858 LC508932 03-09-2010 Soichi Osozawa kur3a Japan:Tokara,Nakano-shima Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508859 LC508933 29-08-2010 Soichi Osozawa kur4a Japan:Ryukyu,Kume-jima Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508860 LC508934 15-08-2014 Soichi Osozawa kur5 Japan:Ryukyu,Okinawa-jima Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508861 LC508935 17-09-2015 Soichi Osozawa kur6 Japan:Ryukyu,Okinawa-jima Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508862 LC508936 17-09-2015 Soichi Osozawa kur7a Japan:Ryukyu,Iheya-jima Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508863 LC508937 18-09-2015 Soichi Osozawa kur8 Japan:Kyushu,Kagoshima,Cape Sata Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508864 LC508938 04-10-2017 Nobuharu Kumagai kur9 Japan:Kyushu,Yaku-shima Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508865 LC508939 10-10-2017 Haruo Fukuda kur10 Japan:Ryukyu,Kikai-jima Meimuna kuroiwae (Matsumura, 1917) LC508866 LC508940 10-11-2017 Nobuharu Kumagai TH-pomp1a Taiwan:Hualien Pomponia linearis Walker, 1850 LC508867 LC508941 04-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa TH-pomp11 Japan:Ryukyu,Ishigaki-jima Pomponia linearis Walker, 1850 LC508868 LC508942 21-08-2014 Tadafumi Nakada TH-pomp9a China:Zhejiang Pomponia linearis Walker, 1850 LC508869 LC508943 25-07-2014 Akira Mishima pomp3 Japan:Ryukyu,Amami Oshima Tanna japonensis Distant, 1892 LC508870 LC508944 07-07-2013 Soichi Osozawa pomp5 Japan:Honshu,Sendai Tanna japonensis Distant, 1892 LC508871 LC508945 21-07-2014 Soichi Osozawa pomp7b China: Zhejiang Tanna sp. LC508872 LC508946 13-08-2014 Akira Mishima pomp10 Japan:Ryukyu, Ishigaki-jima Tanna japonensis ishigakiana (Kato, 1960) LC508873 LC508947 21-08-2014 Tadafumi Nakada pomp2a Taiwan:Yangmingshan Tanna sozanensis Kato, 1926 LC508874 LC508948 07-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa abr1 Japan:Ryukyu, Iheya-jima Graptopsaltria bimaculata Kato, 1925 LC508875 LC508949 21-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa abr2 Japan:Ryukyu, Okinawa-jima Graptopsaltria bimaculata Kato, 1925 LC508876 LC508950 22-06-2010 Soichi Osozawa abr3f Japan:Ryukyu, Tokashiki-jima Graptopsaltria bimaculata Kato, 1925 LC508877 LC508951 24-06-2013 Soichi Osozawa abr11 Japan:Ryukyu, Kume-jima Graptopsaltria bimaculata Kato, 1925 LC508878 LC508952 22-06-2014 Fumiyasu Sato abr3 Japan:Ryukyu, Tokuno-shima Graptopsaltria bimaculata Kato, 1925 LC508879 LC508953 05-07-2013 Soichi Osozawa abr4 Japan:Ryukyu, Amami-Oshima Graptopsaltria bimaculata Kato, 1925 LC508880 LC508954 08-07-2013 Soichi Osozawa abr6 Japan:Hokkaido Graptopsaltria nigrofuscata (Motschulsky, 1866) LC508881 LC508955 16-08-2013 Shusuke Osozawa minmin-abr7 Japan:Hokkaido Hyalessa maculaticollis (Motschulsky, 1866) LC508882 LC508956 16-08-2013 Shusuke Osozawa minmin-abr9 Japan:Honshu,Okino-shima Hyalessa maculaticollis (Motschulsky, 1866) LC508883 LC508957 28-08-2013 Soichi Osozawa We incorporated representative sequence data from the GenBank/DDJB. This is because Tettigarctinae, Derotettiginae, Tibicininae, and Tettigomyiinae are not known from East Asia, and Cicadettinae has only two species of Kosemia in the Japan main islands. Thus to extend our analyses beyond East Asia, the Marshall et al. (2018) and Łukasik et al. (2019) data were essential for us. We combined our data from 113 East Asian specimens with data from 75 specimens from the studies of Marshall et al. (2018; including 20 East Asian specimens) , and Łukasik et al. (2018; including 27 East Asia specimens) . In addition, we incorporated data of 15 Platypleurini (other than Platypleura ) from Price et al. (2019) , and data of 149 Asian Cicadinae from recently published Hill et al. (2021) . Accordingly we analyzed sequence data from 113 + 75 + 15 + 149 = 352 specimens. Platypleura cicada ( Osozawa et al. 2017a ) experienced vicariance triggered by the 1.55 ± 0.15 Ma isolation of the Ryukyu, Japan, and Taiwan islands from Chinese continent ( Osozawa et al. 2012 ), and we collected specimens from each island population for each Platypleura species. Similarly, we collected cicada specimens for the present analyses from each island population of Mogannia (Cicadettinae), and Cryptotympana , Graptopsaltria , Hyalessa , Pomponia , Meimuna , Tanna , and Euterpnosia (Cicadinae). Hyalessa maculaticollis was known to be affected by vicariance within China and Japan ( Liu et al. 2018 ). Our 113 East Asian specimens consist primarily of these endemic and cryptic species inhabiting Japan, Taiwan, and the Ryukyu islands. DNA sequence COI and 18S rRNA sequence data from our collected 113 isolates, including Platypleura in Osozawa et al. (2017a) , are shown in Table 1 . Primers used, amplifications, and sequencing are given in Osozawa et al. (2017a) . These sequence data were aligned by ClustalW in MEGA 5 ( Tamura et al. 2011 ). The COI sequence data comprise 1,534 bp, and the 18S rRNA sequence 874 bp, with high enough resolution to construct a phylogenetic tree, as we showed previous analyses of Platypleura ( Osozawa et al. 2017a ). We did not analyze calmodulin in Osozawa et al. (2017a) , because the resolution was insufficient. The COI data in Marshall et al. (2018) comprised 1,485 pb, comparable to ours. The COI data in Price et al. (2019) comprised 940 bp, and Hill et al. (2021) comprised 648 bp, comparable to ours, so we incorporated these data into our present analyses. Nuclear 18S rRNA shows less variation with much slower base substitution rate compared to mitochondrial COI ( Osozawa et al. 2017a ; COI: 0.0270 substitutions/site/myr, 18S rRNA: 0.000492 s/s/myr; strict clock model; solely calibrated by 1.55 ± 0.15 Ma following Osozawa et al. 2012 ). The tree topology was unaffected by 18S rRNA ( Osozawa et al. 2017a ), but 18S rRNA was included in the analyses in this paper. We used COI and 18S rRNA sequence data, from 352 total specimens (239 from GenBank/DDBJ + 113 of our own) for the COI timetree in Figures 1 and 2 , and 155 total specimens (42 from GenBank/DDBJ + 113 of our own) for the COI +18S rRNA timetree in Figure 3 . The COI and 18S rRNA data in table 1 in Marshall et al. (2018) contain missing and incomparable data, so some of their GenBank/DDBJ data were not applicable for our analyses. Whole mitochondrial sequence data by Łukasik et al. (2019) are included in our analyses as corresponding COI regions. Within COI sequence data in Marshall et al. (2018) , 21 data for Cicadettinae and 14 data for Cicadinae were incorporated into our analyses. 18S rRNA sequence in Marshall et al. (2018) was used for only Nablistes heterochroma (Tettigomyiinae) and Platypedia putnami (Tibicininae). Only the COI sequence data in Price et al. (2019) for Platypleurini and in Hill et al. (2021) for Asian Cicadinae were applied to our study. North American Cryptotympanini were analyzed by Hill et al. (2015) , applying 1,467 bp of COI and 783 bp of nuclear EF-1a with sufficient resolution. Cicadettini, primarily from Australia, was analyzed by Marshall et al. (2016) , applying 1,492 bp of COI and 1,047 bp of nuclear EF-1a also with sufficient resolution. Some of these COI sequence data were included in our analyses. For our initial analysis, we constructed a minimum age tree solely applying COI sequence data ( Figures 1 and 2 ; 352 specimens) that covers Tettigomyiinae and Tibicininae species. Following this analysis, we constructed a minimum age tree by applying both COI and 18S rRNA sequences ( Figure 3 ; 155 specimens, i.e., 352 − 155 = 197 specimens lack 18S rRNA sequences). These analyses showed that topology and ages associated with the analyses were not impacted by inclusion or exclusion of 18S rRNA sequence data. Why was BEAST2 not used? Regarding BEAST2 (= *BEAST2, StarBEAST2), our approach diverged from previous studies such as Osozawa et al. (2016) , Price et al. (2019) , and Hill et al. (2021) , who utilized BEAST v2.5 ( Bouckaert et al. , 2014 ). Instead, we opted for BEAST v1.8 and subsequently v1. X. While the calibration function in BEAUti of BEAST v2.5 bears similarities to BEAST v1. X, there are notable differences. In BEAST v2.5, the “Partition” tab only permits the input of individual sequence data. Consequently, if the sequence data are not concatenated, separate BEAST runs must be conducted for each set of applied sequence data (e.g., mitochondrial COI and nuclear 28S rRNA), as demonstrated by Osozawa et al. (2016) . The resulting tree files from these runs must then be combined into a single file using LogCombiner. However, when merging these tree files, the branches in the resultant tree become folded, reflecting the incongruent topology arising from different sequence data sources, such as mitochondrial COI and nuclear 28S rRNA. To mitigate this issue, Osozawa et al. (2016) employed DensiTree to obscure the foldings. Consequently, we discourage the usage of BEAST v2.5 due to the inconvenience and potential confusion caused by folded branches in the combined tree. In the case of BEAST v2.6, which was released in May 2019, and BEAST v2.7, released in 2023 ( Bouckaert et al. , 2019 ), significant changes were made to the protocols. A tutorial for these versions can be found in https://taming-the-beast.org/tutorials/starbeast2-tutorial . Notably, the inclusion of cladistic data alongside molecular data became possible with the implementation of total-evidence dating ( Zhang et al. , 2016 ). For extinct species, tip dating is set at their youngest fossil age, while for extant species, it is set at zero age. However, the fossil age is often poorly constrained, with minimum and maximum age ranges typically used. In BEAST v2.6 and v2.7, the calibration and node dating function that was implemented in BEAST v2.5 was abandoned, and node dating for extant species is solely based on applying and assuming the base substitution rate. In the context of BEAST v2.6 and v2.7, it is important to clarify that the term “tip” does not refer to terminal nodes for extant species. Instead, it refers to the tip node representing extinct fossil species from ancient times (c.f., https://beast.community/first_tutorial ). The tip date for fossil species is inferred from the fossil age, and it is worth noting that the age assigned is not necessarily the minimum age for the oldest fossil, but rather the youngest fossil, which is often poorly constrained. Additionally, it is crucial to ensure that these fossil species are indeed extinct, and determining their relative placement in relation to the lineage of extant species can be problematic, as it involves the concept of ghost lineage. It is important to understand that tip dating does not contribute to the quality of node dating. Phylogenetic analyses by BEAST v1. X A Bayesian inference (BI) tree ( Figures 1 – 3 ) was constructed using the software BEAST v1. X, running BEAUti, BEAST, TreeAnnotator, and FigTree, in ascending order. Before operating the BEAST software, the BEAGLE Library must be downloaded. Tracer v.1.6 was applied for checking the calculation status and estimating the median base substitution rate. For graphic explanation of the operation of this software, see Osozawa (2021a ; BEAST v1.X tutorial, in a case of four cicada genera) at: dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bq6mmzc6 . In BEAUti, the following software settings were used (Appling Appendix BEAUti file, readers may run the platform software BEAST and check the protocol and reliability). Partitions: Loading fasta files was by using the Import Data or plus button. Partitions defined by the COI and 18S rRNA gene sequences appeared in the Partition box (For Figure 3 ; COI file only for Figures 1 and 2 ). Note that COI and 18S rRNA partitions automatically appear in Partitions without employing PartitionFinder, and the partitioning is performed simply by applying each COI and 18S rRNA sequence, instead of the concatenating of genes by SeaView ( Gouy et al. 2010 ) as done by Price et al. (2019) and Hill et al. (2021) . Additional partitioning by PartitionFinder 2 ( Lanfear et al. 2016 ) in MCMCTree and BEAST2 analyses is not required in the present BEAST1 analyses. Taxa: Loading of taxa as ingroup was by using the plus button. The left screen: Taxon Set (monophyletic boxes were checked for all, and stem box were checked in case by case; see Table 2 ), and the right screen: Included monophyletic Taxa (= specific clade) and the resting Excluded Taxa in the central screen. As input in Figures 1 – 3 , calibration dates were set in Priors bellow. Table 2. Hemiptera, mostly Cicadomorpha calibrations. These are primarily fossil calibrations but include geological event calibrations. See main text and Figures 1 – 3 . Calibration point Fossil Subfamily Family Infraorder-suborder Order Ingroup clade Johnson et al. (2018) X Moulds (2018) Y Formation System Stage tMRCA (Ma) Method Paleontological reference Geological reference A1 † Vosegus triassicus Aphidoidea others Aphidomorpha Hemiptera Aphidoidea others (stem) X Bundsandstein Triassic Anisian 244.5 ± 2.5 correlation Szwedo & Nel (2011) established A2 † Odrowazicoris polonicus Belostomatidae Nepomorpha Hemiptera Lethocerus deyrollei (stem) Zagaje Formation Jurassic Hettangian 200.3 ± 1.0 lacking Popov (1996) lacking A3 † Ledridae Cercopidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Ledra auditura (stem) Jehol Biota Cretaceous Hauterivian 130.7 ± 1.4 Ar-Ar dating Zhang (1997) Hong (1982) He et al. (2006) A4 † Cretogerris albianus Gerridae Gerromorpha Hemiptera Aphis gossypii (strem) X French amber Cretaceous Albian 107 ± 6 lacking Perrichot et al. (2005) lacking A5 † Delphacidae Fulgoromorpha Hemiptera Nilaparvata lugens (stem) Green River Paleogene Eocene Yepresian 51.25 ± 0.31 Ar-Ar dating Grande (1980) Smith et al. (2003) A6 † Ormenis devincta Flatidae Fulgoromorpha Hemiptera Geisha distinctissima (stem) X Maíz Gordo Formation Paleogene Paleocene 61 ± 5 lacking Petrulevičius (2011) lacking B † 'Liassocicada' ignota Tettigarctinae Tettigarctidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Epiophlebia superstes (stem) Y Dorset Jurassic Hettangian 203.1± 1.0 correlation Whalley (1985) established C † Burmacicada protera Derotettiginae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Derotettix mendosensis (stem) Y Burmese amber Cretaceous Cenomanian 98.79 ± 0.62 U-Pb dating Poinar & Kritsky (2011) Shi et al. (2012) C (not applied) Amaranthaceae Derotettiginae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Derotettix mendosensis (stem) Koluel-Kaike Formation Paleogene Eocene 49.512 ± 0.019 Ar-Ar dating Zucol et al. (2018) Woodburne et al. (2014) D † Davispia bearcreekensis Tibicininae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Tibicininae Y Fort Union Formation Paleogene Paleocene 57.6 ± 1.6 correlation Cooper (1941) Flores & Bader (1999) D (not applied) † Platypedia primigenia Tibicininae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Tibicininae Y Florissant Formation Paleogene Oligocene 35.15 ± 1.65 Ar-Ar dating Mcintosh et al. (1992) Mcintosh et al. (1992) D (not applied) † Hadoa grandiose Tibicininae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Tibicininae Y Florissant Formation Paleogene Oligocene 35.15 ± 1.65 Ar-Ar dating Mcintosh et al. (1992) Mcintosh et al. (1992) E † Paracicadetta oligocenica Cicadettinae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Cicadettinae Y Créste Neogene Oligocene Rupelian 28.465 ± 5.435 correlation Boulard & Nel (1990) Ducreux et al. (1985) F † Lyristes sp. Cicadinae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Lyristes plebejus (stem) Y Seifhennersdorf Jirassic Tithonian 30.44 ± 1.52 K-Ar dating Tietz et al. (1998) Walther & Kvacek (2007) G1 † Cryptotympana incasa Cicadinae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Cryptotympana spp. Y Shanwang Neogene Miocene Langhian 16.45 ± 0.45 correlation Zhang et al. (1994) Roček et al. (2011) G2 † Hyalessa lapidescens Cicadinae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Hyalessa maculaticollis Y Shanwang Neogene Miocene Langhian 16.45 ± 0.45 correlation Zhang (1989) Roček et al. (2011) H † Meimuna protopalifera Cicadinae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Meimuna spp. Y Zhirkindek Neogene Miocene Messinian 6.4 ± 0.4 fission track Fujiyama (1969) Fujiwara et al. (2008) Q7 geological event Cicadinae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Meimuna opalifera Hachijo-jima Quaternary Pleistocene Chibanian 0.024 ± 0.0024 U-Pb dating Osozawa et al. (2021b) Osozawa et al. (2021b) Q1-6, Q8-12 geological event Cicadinae Cicadidae Cicadomorpha Hemiptera Meimuna opalifera and others Ryukyu Quaternary Pleistocene Calabrian 1.55 ± 0.15 biostratigraphy Osozawa et al. (2012) Osozawa et al. (2012) Tips and Traits: Default. Sites: Substitution Model: HKY (Hasegawa, Kishino and Yano) model, Base frequencies: Empirical, Site Heterogenety Model: Gamma, Number of Gamma Categories: 4, Partition into codon positions: Off. The GTR model generates similar topology. Clocks: Clock Type: Uncorrected relaxed clock, Relaxed Distribution: Lognormal. Uncorrelated relaxed clocks allow each branch of a phylogenetic tree to have its own evolutionary rate under log-normal distribution, and the node rate is the rate median of three branches (Drummond et al. 2006). Trees: Tree Prior: Speciation: Yule Process. Priors: tMRCA (time of MRCA) was input from the calibration point date as Prior Distribution: Normal, and as the Mean and Standard deviation. See bellow for Priors as detailed setting of age calibration. Operators: Default. MCMC: Length of chain: 10,000,000. Running BEAST was done by incorporating xml input file made by BEAUti. The consequent tree was drawn by FigTree v1.4.2, for that, the tree files were input into TreeAnnotator. The 95% highest posterior density for confidence intervals of ages can be output in FigTree, but not shown in Figures 1 – 3 to avoid visual complexity. In FigTree, posterior probability (“posterior”), posterior age (“Node ages”), and “rate median” (not constant) can be output, and these are shown at each node in Figures 2 and 3 . This rate related function was not used in any previous paper, and we found in this paper variable base substitution rates the time as suggested by the relaxed clock model of BEAST ( Drummond et al. 2012 ). Consequently, we made base substitution rate (“rate median” shown at each node in FigTree) vs age (“Node age” shown at each node in FigTree) diagram ( Figures 1 – 3 inset) using a function of Excel. The inset in Figures 1 – 3 shows that the base substitution rate was relatively slow until the Quaternary higher rate. To evaluate whether the slow rate reflected saturation, we examined the relation between pairwise distance and number of transition or transversion for each gene, using the MEGA5 function ( Tamura et al. 2011 ; Figure 4 ). Figure 4. Number of base changes of transition and tansversion vs corrected pairwide distance diagram for whole mitochondrial gene. Fossil and geological event calibrations by BEAST v1. X Calibrations points are shown on minimum age trees in Figures 1 – 3 , and these dates were input in “Priors” in BEAUti as noted above; they are summarized below ( Table 2 ). As noted above, corresponding ingroup species were included in ingroup taxa (= leaf node taxa in a specific clade) by Taxon Set on the Taxa screen in BEAUti. Fossil calibrations are after Johnson et al. (2018) and Moulds (2018) ( Table 2 ; Figures 1 – 3 ). For these fossil calibrations, some are based on radio-isotopic dating of the fossil-bearing strata, whereas others are based on biostratigraphy assigned to an age/stage on the geologic time scale, for which absolute age ranges are generally based on radio-isotopic dates of associated strata in key global localities. This time scale has been standardized by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) ( www.stratigraphy.org ) and the most recent version of the time scale is available at http://www.stratigraphy.org/index.php/ics-chart-timescale , and the explanatory paper related to the generation of the time scale is Cohen et al. (2013) . Calibration points Q1 to Q6 and Q8 to Q12 are after our geological event calibration that adopts a 1.55 Ma date ( Osozawa et al. 2012 ). This geologic event calibration was used in previous studies of Platypleura cicadas ( Osozawa et al. 2017a ) and four cicada groups ( Osozawa et al. 2021a ). The specific calibration points are as follows: tMRCA of Mogannia minuta (Q1), M. hebes (Q2), Cryptotympana facialis (Q3), dark winged Platypleura (Q4) and right winged Platypleura (Q5; Osozawa et al. 2017a ), Graptopsaltria nigrofuscata + G. bimaculata (Q6), Meimuna kuroiwae (Q8) , M. oshimaensis + M. iwasakii + M. goshizana (Q9), Tanna japonensis + T. japonensis ishigakiana + T. sozanensis + T. sp. (Q10) Euterpnosia chibensis + E. chibensis daitoensis + E. chibensis okinawana (Q11), E. iwasakii + E. viridifrons + E. olivacea + E. gina + E. sp. (Q12): The date of the geological event, which records the isolation of the Ryukyu Islands from the Chinese mainland by the opening of the Okinawa trough that began (i.e., islands had separated from mainland and each other by this time) at 1.55 ± 0.15 Ma ( Osozawa et al. 2012 ). The age assignment is from multiple biostratigraphic and radio-isotopic ages from the oldest marine strata on the landward side of the islands as well as the sides facing other islands, so that the age of such strata constrains the physical separation of the islands from the mainland and each other. There is no geologic evidence for land bridges that could have aided dispersal in the Ryukyu Islands. Calibration point Q7 ( Meimuna opalifera ) is distinct from the above 1.55 ± 0.15 Ma event calibration. Hachijo oceanic island is a part of the Izu volcanic arc, and we recently estimated the emergence time of Hachijo-jima as an island at 0.24 Ma ( Osozawa et al. 2021b ). This date is applicable for crown Meimuna opalifera on the Hachijo-jima + the Japan-Tokara islands (= Stem Meimuna opalifera on Hachijo-jima). With the assumption that the oldest fossil age is equivalent tMRCA (= minimum age), the specific fossil calibration points and associated dates are as follows: Calibration point A1: Crown Hemiptera: Fossils of Aphidoidea were reported from the French Bundsandstein ( Szwedo & Nel 2011 ; Bashkuev et al. 2012 ) of Anisian age (244.5 ± 2.5 Ma). A2: The oldest fossil Belostomatidae was reported from the Zagaje Formation, Poland ( Popov 1996 ) of Hettangian age (200.3 ± 1.0 Ma). A3: Fossil Ledridae ( Zhang 1997 ) and fossil Cercopidae ( Hong 1982 ) were recovered from the Jehol Biota of northern China. The Jehol Biota horizon has been dated by the Ar-Ar method on associated silicic tuff at 130.7 ± 1.4 Ma ( He et al. 2006 ). A4: Fossil Gerridae were recovered from French amber ( Perrichot et al. 2005 ) of Albian age (107 ± 6 Ma). A5: Fossil Delphacidae were found in the Green River Formation, USA ( Grande 1980 ). Ar-Ar dating on silicic tuff within the formation yields ages of 53.5 – 48.5 Ma (weighted average age of 51.25 ± 0.31 Ma; Smith et al. 2003 ). A6: Fossil Flatidae were found in the Maíz Gordo Formation, northwest Argentina ( Petrulevičius 2011 ) of Paleocene age (61 ± 5 Ma). Calibration point B: Stem Tettigarctinae: Oldest fossil of Tettigarctinae were found in strata Dorset, England ( Whalley 1985 ) of Hettangian age (203.1± 1.0 Ma). Calibration point C: Stem Derotettiginae: The preferred food of Derotettix mendosensis is Amaranthaceae in Argentina ( Simon et al. 2019 ), and this worldwide C4 plant was phylogenetically studied by Piirainen et al. (2017) . This plant fossil was reported by Zucol et al. (2018) , and the fossil-bearing horizon was dated by the Ar-Ar method at 49.512 ± 0.019 Ma (Eocene; Woodburne et al. 2014 ). However, fossil Burmacicada protera were found from Burmese amber ( Poinar & Kritsky 2011 ). Detrital zircons from the amber bearing matrix yielded a maximum depositional age U-Pb age of 98.79 ± 0.62 Ma, that was interpreted to closely approximate the actual depositional age on the basis of geologic relationships and associated fossils ( Shi et al. 2012 ). We applied this older date of Burmese amber for stem Derotettiginae or crown Cicadidae. Calibration point D: Stem Platypedia putnami (= crown Tibicininae): Fossil Platypedia primigenia were found in the Florissant Formation, Colorado, USA, and the associated strata was dated by the Ar-Ar method at 35.15 ± 1.65 Ma ( Mcintosh et al. 1992 ). However, we used an older crown date for crown Tibicininae based on fossil Davispia bearcreekensis that were found in the Fort Union Formation, Montana, USA ( Cooper 1941 ). The age of the enclosing strata has been considered Thanetian in age (57.6 ± 1.6 Ma) ( Flores & Bader 1999 ). Crown Cryptotympanini: Fossil Hadoa grandiose were also found in the Florissant Formation, Colorado, USA, but this calibration generated an unreasonable tree and was not adopted. Calibration point E: Crown Cicadettinae: Paracicadetta oligocenica ( Boulard & Nel 1990 ) were recovered from deposits of Céreste, France, and this famous fossil locality was considered to be of Ruperian age (31 ± 2.9 Ma; Ducreux et al. 1985 ). Calibration point F: Stem Lyristes plebejus : Fossil Lyristes sp. were reported from Seifhennersdorf, Germany ( Tietz et al. 1998 ), and associated strata was dated by the K-Ar method as 30.44 ± 1.52 Ma ( Walther & Kvacek 2007 ). Calibration point G: Crown Cryptotympana : Fossil Cryptotympana incasa and C. miocenica (G1), and also Hyalessa lapidescens (G2) were found in Shanwang, Shandong, China ( Zhang 1989 ; Zhang et al. 1994 ), and these strata are considered to be time correlative to the European MN5 mammalian unit (16.45 ± 0.45 Ma; Roček et al. 2011 ). Calibration point H: Crown Meimuna spp.: Fossil Meimuna protopalifera were found in the Itamuro Formation, Tochigi, Japan ( Fujiyama 1969 ; Yoshikawa 2005 ), and the zircon fission track age of correlative terrestrial strata of the Nashino Formation of the Sendai area is 6.4 ± 0.4 Ma ( Fujiwara et al. 2008 ). Results Hemiptera minimum age tree ( Figure 1 ) Our timetree spans a range as old as ca. 250 Ma, and there is no evidence of saturation of mutations ( Figure 4 ), suggesting our minimum age tree is robust and reliable. Because the topology is concordant between Figures 1 and 2 (COI) and Figure 3 (COI + 16S rRNA), the following description follows Figure 2 with 352 specimens. Our analyses was concordant to the subfamily classification of Marshall et al. (2018) , Łukasik et al. (2019) , and Simon et al. (2019) . Figures 1 and 2 also include data in Price et al. (2019) and Hill et al. (2021) . Hemiptera, including Cicadoidea, has a single common ancestor of 242.96 Ma, as calibrated by the 244.5 ± 2.5 Ma age reviewed above as A1. The dated tree of the outgroup Hemiptera calibrated by A1 to A6 was concordant to Johnson et al. (2018) and Misof et al. (2014) . In the Cicadoidea ingroup, Tettigarctidae was an old lineage that differentiated from Cicadidae at 200.63 Ma, as calibrated by 200.3 ± 1 Ma (calibration point B), so Tettigarctidae is essentially a living fossil that has persisted since 200.63 Ma. We estimated a date of the common ancestor of two extant species of Tettigarcta tomentosa (Tasmania) and T. crinita (southeast Australia) at 13.96 Ma, and the youngest fossil of Tettigarctinae was reported from the Aquitanian (21.735 ± 1.295 Ma), southern New Zealand ( Kaulfuss & Moulds 2015 ). However, Tettigarctidae includes 19 extinct genera according to Kaulfuss and Moulds (2015) and with many more genera according to Moulds (2018) . Simon et al. (2019) proposed a new subfamily Derotettiginae consisting of a single species of Derotettix mendosensis , which is a sister of the remaining Cicadidae species and the oldest lineage species in Cicadidae dated at 99.2 Ma, as calibrated by point C at 98.79 ± 0.62 Ma. Łukasik et al. (2018) showed such a basal lineage of D. mendosensis in Cicadidae. Our timetree showed that Tibicininae is a sister of Tettigomyiinae + Cicadettinae + Cicadinae and differentiated at 66.15 Ma, and Tibicininae started differentiation at 57.31 Ma, as calibrated by point D at 57.6 ± 1.6 Ma. Tettigomyiinae is a sister of Cicadettinae and differentiated at 35.46 Ma, Tettigomyiinae + Cicadettinae is a sister of Cicadinae differentiated at 40.57 Ma. Cicadettinae started differentiation at 30.85 Ma, as calibrated by point E at 31 ± 2.9 Ma. Cicadinae started differentiation at 38.25 Ma. Differentiation of Tettigomyiinae + Cicadettinae took place simultaneously after 35.46 Ma. A single common ancestor of Cicadidae except Derotettiginae started differentiation and speciation into Tibicininae, Tettigomyiinae, Cicadettinae, and Cicadinae at 66.15 Ma. Although the pre-Miocene fossil Cicadidae collectively include ten extinct genera, comprising Davispia and Lithocicada for Tibicininae, Paracicadetta , Paleopsalta , Minyscapheus , and Miocenoprasia for Cicadettinae, and Burmacicada, Camuracicada , Tymocicada , Dominicicada for Cicadinae, the remaining 23 genera post-Oligocene fossil cicadas are extant ( Moulds 2018 ). Cicadidae, consisted of only one species but coexisted with a Tettigarctidae species between 200.63 and 66.15 Ma, and cicada biodiversity was extremely low during this period except for extinct species and D. mendosensis. In the Cicadettinae major clade, each tribe constitutes a distinct clade. In the Cicadinae major clade, apart from older five tribe clades containing only one specimen, six tribe clades of Platypleurini, Cryptotympanini, Psithyristriini, Dundubiini + Cosmopsaltriini, Polyneurini + Sonatini, and Leptopsaltriini + Gaeanini are recognized. Discrepancies are addressed by reconsideration of taxonomy in the discussion. The geologic calibration points Q1 to Q12 at 1.55 ± 0.15 Ma (and 0.24 Ma) apply to multi furcations that were recognized for Mogannia minuta and other cicadas endemic to in the Ryukyu Islands and Taiwan (and in Hachijo-jima) as noted above. Each island or island group population was mostly genetically distinct, endemic, and cryptic, as shown for Platypleura in Osozawa et al. (2017a) . This also applies to Meimuna opalifera on Hachijo oceanic island ( Osozawa et al. 2021a , b ). However, note that some cicadas were accidentally dispersed by super typhoons up to 1,000 km in modern and ancient times including Meimuna boninensis ( Osozawa et al. 2021a ). Inconsistent cicada base substitution rate ( Figures 1 – 3 insets) Comparing base substitution rate vs age shows that the rate has not been constant; the rate appears to have exponentially increased into the Holocene. The data points, approximate curve, and associated equation are shown on the insets of Figures 1 – 3 . The curves and associated rates are similar for analyses based on COI alone ( Figures 1 and 2 insets), and combined COI + 18S rRNA ( Figure 3 inset). Figure 4 shows that even mitochondrial COI gene with rapid base substitution rate ( Osozawa et al. 2017a ) is never saturated toward the ancient time up to ca. 250 Ma. Discussion Taxonomic implications from the dated tree Tibicininae is solely from North and South America with an exceptional occurrence from the Mediterranean region, but absent from Asia and Africa (+ Australia). The stem age is estimated at 66.15 Ma ( Figures 1 and 2 ), and if we assume that Tibicininae was generated by vicariance its differentiation may have been influenced by the formation of the Atlantic Ocean. Marine magnetic anomalies on the Atlantic Ocean floor can be used to ascertain spreading history and separation of continents that resulted from this spreading. The configuration at Chron34 (84Ma) after the Cretaceous magnetic quiet zone (long normal polarity epoch; superchron K-T at 118-84 Ma) was shown by Moulin et al. (2010) , and the south Atlantic Ocean spread over 500 km (minimum distance between Africa and South America) at Chron 34 (84 Ma). The date of 84 Ma can be considered to be a starting date of continent level vicariance, which may have triggered the Tibicininae differentiations relative to especially Cicadinae shown in Figures 1 and 2 . In Cicadettinae, Prasiini is a sister of Cicadettini. Muda kuroiwae in Prasiini ( Hayashi & Saisho 2011 ) is endemic and restricted to Okinawa-jima and Kume-jima, and represents as a sister of the similar species of Katoa taibaiensis on the Chinese mainlamd. In the Moganniini clade, Nipponosemia terminalis (Matsumura 1913) (synonym: Vagitanus terminalis ) is a sister of Mogannia spp. N. terminalis has been documented from the Yaeyama islands and Miyako-jima (endangered and protected), Ryukyu, and Taiwan ( Figure 2 from the Taiwan specimen; another species of N. virecens is known from the Kaoshun peninsula, southern most Taiwan; Lee & Hayashi 2004 ), but Yang & Wei (2013) reported N. terminalis and other three Nipponosemia from China. A detailed phylogenetic study for these Nipponosemia species would be useful. The genitalia and morphological character are similar to Mogannia ( Hayashi & Saisho 2011 ), concordant to the sister relationship with Mogannia. See Osozawa et al. (2021a) for the Mogannia minuta vicariant speciation on the Ryukyu Islands and the accidental typhoon dispersals in recent and also ancient times. Mogannia hebes in northern Taiwan and in southern China has sister relationship reflecting vicariance by the Taiwan strait (Osozawa et al. 2011), and this species in southern Taiwan was differentiated relative to the northern Taiwan species reflecting vicariance triggered by the physical barriers of the Yilan basin and Lanyang valley ( Osozawa et al. 2017b ; http://kawaosombgi.livedoor.blog/?p=26 and others). We combined East Asian Platypleura data after Osozawa et al. (2017a) with mostly African Platypleurini data excluding Platypleura after Price et al. (2019) , and the terminal node of the East Asian Platypleura in the Platypleurini clade suggests the possibility of a Gondwanan origin and dispersal to Far East of Japan and Ryukyu, and Taiwan ( Price et al. 2019 ). See Osozawa et al. (2017a) for the Platypleura vicariant speciation (see below for the cryptic speciation) on the Ryukyu Islands. Tacua speciosa (Tacuini) represents the basal lineage of Cryptotympanini concordant with Marshall et al. (2018) . In the Cryptotympanini clade, Auritibicen in Japan is the basal lineage, and Lyristes plebejus (synonym: Tibicen plebejus ) in Croatia is the next. Asian Cryptotympana species is a sister of North American Noetibicen species ( Hill et al. 2015 ). Intercontinental dispersal by way of a Bering land bridge during Oligocene to Miocene climatic optima ( Wu et al. 2015 ) was proposed for Papilionoidea butterflies feeding on Magnoliidae. Zammara smaragdina , Costa Rica, represents the basal lineage of the remaining major clades that are paraphyletic each other. Distantalna splendida , renamed from Tosena splendida by Boulard (2009; referred in Hill et al. 2015) , is represented by Tosenini, as a next basal lineage, distinct from another Tosenini of Tosena melanopteryx in the Psithyristriini composite clade. Tosena (Tosenini) and Pomponia (Psithyristriini) has a sister relationship, and these are similar tribes (species level transfer may be needed; Duffels & Hayashi, 2006 ). Pomponia backanensis , northern Vietnam, was described by Pham et al. (2015) . Pomponia linearis on the Yaeyama islands and Taiwan, mildly differentiated each other as cryptic species, was renamed P. yayeyamana based on Kato (1932) . The original P. linearis was reported from primarily Indochina, and has been treated as the P. linearis complex, including cryptic Chinese and Indian populations ( Hayashi & Saisho 2011 ). Unipomponia decem (Psithyristriini?) was renamed Pomponia decem ( Lee & Sanborn 2010 ). Megapomponia ( Lee & Sanborn 2010 ) was associated with the genera from Dundubiina ( Hill et al. 2021 ), and included in the Dundubiini clade. Oceanian Cosmopsaltriini is a sister of Asian Dundubiini, reflecting large scale vicariance driven by bio-geographic barrier of the Wallacea line, as well as endemism within the islands by Oceanian arc fragmentations ( Boer & Duffels 1996 ). In the Dundubiini clade, see Osozawa et al. (2021a) for the vicariant and cryptic speciation of Meimuna kuroiwae on the Ryukyu islands and the accidental typhoon dispersals in recent and ancient times (including Meimuna boniensis on the oceanic Bonin islands). See Osozawa et al. (2021a) for the vicariant and cryptic speciation of Meimuna opalifera on the oceanic Hachijo-jima island ( Osozawa et al. 2021b ) by the accidental typhoon dispersal from the Japan continental islands. Meimuna mongolica in Korea and China is the basal lineage relative to the sympatric M. opalifera. Meimuna oshimensis endemic on the Amami and Okinawa islands (cryptic species), Meimuna iwasakii endemic on the Yaeyama islands and Taiwan (no specimen collected from Taiwan specimen; cryptic species), and Meimuna goshizana and M. gakokizana , other endemic species on Taiwan, were vicariantly speciated or adaptively radiated in Taiwan. Hyalessa is in Sonatini was renamed from Oncotympana in the distinct Oncotympanini. Hyalessa maculaticollis in Japan and China ( Liu et al. 2018 ) is deeply differentiated. Sonatini is a sister of Polyneurini (once included in Tosenini; noted in Hayashi & Saisho 2011 ), and these constitute the Polyneurini + Sonatini clade. Graptopsaltria nigrofuscata in Japan and G. bimaculata on the Amami and Okinawa islands were vicariantly speciated. Terpnosia cf. graecina was synonymised with Leptopsaltriina (discussed in Hill et al. 2021 ) constitutes the basal lineage with Thailand Leptopsaltriini in the Leptopsaltriini-Gaeanini major clade. Kalabita operculata , Malaysia, was a member of above-mentioned Platypleurini known to have diversified in Africa ( Price et al. 2019 ), but this Asian species is included in the Leptopsaltriini + Gaeanini clade. Trilar (2006) presented an adult photo of K. operculata showing that it lacks the pronotum that characterizes Platypleurini. Furthermore, the spectrogram - oscillogram of its song is similar to those of Euterpnosia spp., Leptopsaltriini, shown in Hayashi and Saisho (2011) . Platypleurini both in African and Asia are monophyletic as noted above, and an exception is unreasonable. Hill et al. (2021) transferred Kalabita Moulton, 1923 from Platypleurini to Leptopsaltriini. Tosena paviei is a member of Tosenini, but is a sister of Callogaeana guanxiensis in Gaeanini, and renamed as Vittagaeana paviei in Gaeanini by Hill et al. (2021) . Both the species are from Vietnam, and constitute a Gaeanini clade with another Vietnam species of Balinta cf. tenebricosa of Gaeanini. An interesting result is that Gaeanini including T. paviei is not monophyletic, and paraphyletic in the Leptopsaltriini major clade. Hill et al. (2021) showed wing phenotypes of Gaeanini- Tosenini, which are distinct from phenotypes of Leptopsaltriini. Note that Gaeana (Gaeanini) is also a sister of Tanna (Leptopsaltriini) with different wing and chest phenotypes. Tanna japonensis is differentiated between Japan and the isolated population on the Amami-Oshima island, and further differentiated from the isolated Tanna japonensis ishigakiana population on Ishigaki-jima island. Taiwan yields Tanna sozanensis (sister of T. japonensis ishigakiana ) and the other seven Tanna species ( Chen 2011 ), might have adaptively radiated within the island. Tanna in China is a sister of T. sozanensis. According to Hill et al. (2021) , Cicadmallus micheli is characterised by an unusual ‘hammer-head’ morphology but otherwise bears morphological relationships to Leptopsaltriini, and represents the basal lineage of Indochina Terpnosia ( Thai & Yang 2009 ) and East Asian Euterpnosia of the Leptopsaltriini clade. See Osozawa et al. (2021a) for the vicariant and cryptic speciation for Euterpnosia for the northern population on Japan-Amami-Okinawa and the southern population on Yaeyama-Taiwan, as well as accidental typhoon dispersal in ancient times ( Euterpnosia chibensis daitoensis on the oceanic Daito islands from Tokuno-shima continental island). Taiwan yields Euterpnosia gin a, E. olivacea , E. viridifrons , and other 12 Euterpnosia species ( Chen 2011 ), and may have adaptively radiated within the island. Recently increased cicada biodiversity Hemipteroid insects of Psocodea, Thysanoptera, and the subject of this study, Hemiptera, include 120,000 described species which comprise over 10% of known insect diversity; they date back to 400 Ma (Hemiptera: 300 Ma; Johnson et al. 2018 ). Johnson et al. (2018) estimated that differentiation into species took place primarily in the Cretaceous, including Cercopoidea, Gerriidea, Flatidae, and Cicadoidea, which are common to our analyses. However, they analyzed only two to nine taxa, in contrast to the 344 taxa of Cicadoidea and 8 taxa for other Hemiptera of our analyses. Misof et al. (2014) estimated mostly pre-Paleogene dates of differentiation into species including Cercopoidea, Aphididae, and Delphacidae, concordant with our analyses, with less than 13 taxa analyzed. Their higher-level phylogeny suggested long branches and an old lineage of each super family species concordant with ours, but did not suggest the geologically recent increase in insect diversity apparent from our analyses of 352 Hemiptera taxa ( Figure 2 ). In Figure 2 , ingroup Cicadidae, excluding Derotettiginae, underwent extensive differentiation into 341 taxa after 66.15 Ma, mostly after 40.57 Ma, leading to increasing biodiversity of Cicadidae, although Price et al. (2019) suggested that number of lineages saturated in the Pleistocene. Cicadidae consisted of only two species including D. mendosensis between 99.2 and 66.15 Ma, although Cicadidae contains many extinct species that remain to be identified as fossils ( Moulds 2018 ). Cryptic species on each island of Ryukyu chain are typical examples of increased biodiversity. For example, Platypleura kaempferi in the Amami and Okinawa islands has light colored wings, contrasting with dark colored wings in Japan-Korea-China and Taiwan, and the clades are distinct from each other ( Osozawa et al. 2017a ). P. kaempferi is not a single species but includes at least two cryptic species of light or dark winged Platypleura. Cicadas calibrated by other Quaternary calibration points include cryptic species, which also contributed to increasing biodiversity. The Okinawa trough is currently spreading (widening) and the Ryukyu islands are separating from the Chinese mainland. Accordingly vicariant speciation and radiation is in progress, which is also contributing increasing biodiversity. On the Chinese mainland, Hyalessa maculaticollis and Platypleura hilpa extensively radiated to form cryptic species ( Liu et al. 2018 , 2020 ). Exponentially increased base substitution rate as a factor of Hemiptera diversity, and their possible causes Figures 1 – 3 insets show a large range of base substitution rates for different time periods, at variance with the constant molecular clock hypothesis (relatively constant rate over time; Ho 2008 ). The trend in base substitution rates shows an exponential increase into the Holocene. Such an increase in base substitution rate was first shown for taxa such as primates by Ho et al. (2005) who showed that a Quaternary calibration date resulted in a more a rapid base substitution rate than that associated with an older calibration date. They employed an older version of BEAST (v1. 3; Drummond & Rambaut 2003) that required repeated runs, applying a date at each calibration point. In contrast, BEAST v1. X, used in our analyses, can simultaneously apply multiple calibration points, as we have done using dates ranging from the Triassic to the Quaternary. As a result, the calculated increasing rate of base substitution in our analyses is not an artifact of a Quaternary calibration, but is constrained by multiple age calibrations across a wide range of geologic time. Therefore, although the base substitution rate trendlines and associated equations of Ho et al. (2005) are similar to ours, their timetrees do not reflect the changing of base substitution rates through time, but rather reflect a constant base substitution rate as if constrained by a strict molecular clock. A similar analysis was done for beetles in the Aegean region by Papadopoulo et al. (2010) . The increasing base substitution rate is apparently associated with the recently increasing cicada diversity, expansion, and radiation (in Figure 2 timetree) that started at 40.57 Ma. The rapid diversification of Delphacini is linked to shifts in host plants, particularly from C3 to C4 grasses within the Poaceae family ( Urban et al. 2010 ). The timing of the most rapid diversification coincides with Quaternary environmental change, marked by the start of glacial-inter glacial cycles. The initiation of Quaternary glaciations may have been triggered by rapid expansion of land grasses (Poales), that led to increased carbon fixation that decreased atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, because of the high efficiency of CO 2 fixation of such C4 plants ( Sage 2004 ; Taira 2007 ). C4 Poales appeared and began diversification during the Oligocene (23 – 33.9 Ma) based on molecular clock approach, and after 14.5 Ma based on fossil evidence ( Sage 2004 ). We estimated 20.35 Ma by our Angiospermae timetree, that also employed BEAST v1. X with robust plant fossil calibrations ( Osozawa et al. 2021c ). Food plants of D. mendosensis are, however, C4 dicots of Amaranthaceae (see figure 9 in Sage 2004 ) and Chenopodiaceae in degraded salt-plain habitats in arid regions of central Argentina ( Simon et al. 2019 ). These dicot fossils and C4 monocot fossils of Poales grass (Chloridoidae) were reported from the Eocene in Patagonia by Zucol et al. (2018) , and the fossil horizon was dated by the Ar-Ar method at 49.512 ± 0.019 Ma ( Woodburne et al. 2014 ). The C4 photosynthetic pathway began at ca. 50 Ma in South America, earlier than elsewhere. For Chloridoideae, however, transition from C3 to C4 photosynthesis occurred in the Oligocene (23~33.9 Ma) as reported by Christin et al. (2008) , consistent with our estimate for C4 dicots at 31.92 Ma ( Osozawa et al. 2021c ), whereas Sage (2004) suggested a fossil date at 14.5 Ma as noted above. The trigger of increasing biodiversity may have been the generation and radiation of C4 plants and development of grass lands on the Earth since the Oligocene or perhaps more definitively since middle Miocene, by decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This may have led to the start of Quaternary ice ages and resultant adaptive radiation and increasing base substitution (≒ mutation) rates. Thus, biologic activity, including spreading C4 grasses may have significantly impacted Earth's environment. Data availability Sequence data in Table 1 are found in GenBank/DDBJ by incorporating the accession number. The xml file generated by BEAUti for running the BEAST platform software contains all the utilized sequence data and can be obtained upon email request to the senior author. Acknowledgements We thank Chris Simon and David Marshall for privately offering Tettigarcta sequence data (later released in GenBank/DDBJ). David Marshall also privately offered Asian Cicadinae sequence data of Hill et al. (2021) and reprint of Price et al. (2019) . We pay our respects to their extensive and perfect taxon samplings including in protected countries with necessary permissions. We thank the collectors shown in Table 1 . Bor-ming Jahn (Taiwan University; deceased 1 December, 2016), Ping-Shih Yang (Taiwan University), Chin-Ho Tsai (National Dong Hwa University), and Jen-Zon Ho (deceased 2018) and Hua-Te Fang (Endemic Species Research Institute) supported sample collections and obtained permission to collect in Taiwan. This project was partly financed through the Osozawa Fund (former), Tohoku University. We thank Keiji Nunohara (Nunohara Office for Geological Survey), Kohei Sugawara (Ecofarm GSK), Atsushi Momose (Mitsubishi Material Techno Corporation), CTI Engineering Co., Ltd., and NEWJEC, Inc. for contributing to this fund. This work was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, “Extrusion Wedge of the Sambagawa High P-T Metamorphic Rocks,” in the form of a grant awarded to the senior author (20540441). References Benton MJ, Donoghue PCJ: Paleontological evidence to date the tree of life. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007; 24 : 26–53. PubMed Abstract Benton MJ, Donoghue PCJ, Asher RJ, et al. : Constraints on the timescale of animal evolutionary history. Palaeontol. Electron. 2015; 18.1.1FC : 1–106. Publisher Full Text Bashkuev A, Se J, Aristov D, et al. : Insects from the Buntsandstein of Lower Franconia and Thuringia. Paläontol. Z. 2012; 86 : 175–185. Publisher Full Text Bouckaert R, Heled J, Kühnert D, et al. : BEAST 2: A software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014; 10 : e1003537. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Bouckaert R, Vaughan T, Barido-Sottani J, et al. : (2019) BEAST 2: An advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2019; 15 : e1006650. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Boulard M: Distantalna genre nouveau pour les Tosenini (Rhynchota, Cicadomorpha, Cicadidae). Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie (N.S.). 2009; 25 : 325–328. Boulard M, Nel A: Sur deux cigales fossiles des terrains tertiaires de la France (Homoptera, Cicadoidea). Revue Francaise d’Entomologie. 1990; 12 : 37–45. Chen CH: A field guide to cicadas in Taiwan. Taipei: Bookzone; 2011; 206p. (In Chinese) Christin PA, Besnard G, Samaritani E, et al. : Oligocene CO 2 decline promoted C4 photosynthesis in grasses. Curr. Biol. 2008; 18 : 37–43. Cohen KM, Finney SC, Gibbard PL, et al. : The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart. Episodes. 2013; 36 : 199–204. Publisher Full Text Cooper KW: Davispia bearcreekensis Cooper, A new cicada from the Paleocene, with a brief review of the fossil Cicadidae. Am. J. Sci. 1941; 239 : 286–304. Publisher Full Text de Boer AJ , Duffels JP: Historical biogeography of the cicadas of Wallacea, New Guinea and the West Pacific: a geotectonic explanation. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 1996; 124 : 153–177. Publisher Full Text Drummond AJ, Suchard MA, Xie D, et al. : Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012; 29 : 1969–1973. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Ducreux J, Hugueney M, Truc G: La formation des Calcaires et Lignites de Sigonce (Oligocene moyen, bassin de Forcalquier, Alpes-de-Haute- Provence): datation a l'aide des mammiferes; reconstitution des milieux de depots. Geobios. 1985; 18 : 109–114. Publisher Full Text Duffels JP, Hayashi M: On the identity of the cicada species Pomponia picta (Walker) (= P. fusca (Olivier)) and P. linearis (Walker) (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie. 2006; 149 : 189–201. Publisher Full Text Flores RM, Bader LR: Fort Union coal in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana: A synthesis. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1999; 1625-A : 1–71. Fujiyama I: A Miocene Cicada from Nasu, with an additional record of a Pleistocene cicada from Shiobara, Japan. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo. 1969; 12 : 863–875. Fujiwara O, Yanagisawa Y, Irizuki T, et al. : Chronological data for the Middle Miocene to Pliocene sequence around the southwestern Sendai Plain, with special reference to the uplift history of the Ou Backbone Range. Bulletin of Geological Survey Japan. 2008; 59 : 423–438. Publisher Full Text Grande L: Paleontology of the Green River Formation with a review of the fish fauna. The Geological Survey of Wyoming Bulletin. 1980; 63 : 1–333. Gouy M, Guindon S, Gascuel O: SeaView version 4: a multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2010; 27 : 221–224. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Hayashi M, Saisho Y: The Cicadidae of Japan. Tokyo: Seibundo-Sinkosha; 2011; 223. (In Japanese). He HY, Wang XL, Jin F, et al. : The 40Ar/39Ar dating of the early Jehol Biota from Fengning, Hebei Province, northern China. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2006; 7 : Q04001. Publisher Full Text Hill KBR, Marshall DC, Moulds MS, et al. : Molecular phylogenetics, diversification, and systematics of Tibicen Latreille, 1825 and allied cicadas of the tribe Cryptotympanini, with three new genera and emphasis on species from the USA and Canada (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadidae). Zootaxa. 2015; 3985 : 219–251. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Hill KRB, Marshall DC, Marathe K, et al. : The molecular systematics and diversification of a taxonomically unstable group of Asian cicada tribes related to Cicadini Latreille, 1802 (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Invertebr. Syst. 2021; 2021 (35): 570–601. Ho S: The molecular clock and estimating species divergence. Nature Education. 2008; 1 : 168. Ho SY, Phillips MJ, Cooper A, et al. : Time dependency of molecular rate estimates and systematic overestimation of recent divergence times. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005; 2 : 1561–1568. Hong YC: Mesozoic Fossil Insects of Jiuquan Basin in Gansu Province. Clapham; 1982. In Chinese. Johnson KP, et al. : Phylogenomics and the evolution of hemipteroid insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2018; 115 : 12775–12780. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Kato M: Monograph of Cicadidae. Tokyo, Japan: Sanseido; 1932; 450 pp. (In Japanese partly supplemented by English). Kaulfuss U, Moulds M: A new genus and species of tettigarctid cicada from the early Miocene of New Zealand: Paratettigarcta zealandica (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha, Tettigarctidae). ZooKeys. 2015; 484 : 83–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text King B, Rücklin M: Tip dating with fossil sites and stratigraphic sequences. PeerJ. 2020; 8 : e9368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Klopfstein K: The age of insects and the revival of the minimum age tree. Austral Entomol. 2021; 60 : 138–146. Publisher Full Text Lanfear R, Frandse PB, Wright AM, et al. : PartitionFinder 2: new methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016. Publisher Full Text Lee YJ, Hayashi M: Taxonomic Review of Cicadidae (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha) from Taiwan, Part 3. Dundubiini (Two Other Genera of Cicadina), Moganiini, and Huechysini with a New Genus and Two New Species. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2004; 7 : 45–72. Publisher Full Text Lee YJ, Sanborn AF: Three new species of the genus Megapomponia (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) from Indochina, with a key to the species of Megapomponia. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2010; 13 : 31–39. Publisher Full Text Liu Y, Qiu Y, Wang X, et al. : Morphological variation, genetic differentiation and phylogeography of the East Asia cicada Hyalessa maculaticollis (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Syst. Entomol. 2018; 43 : 308–329. Publisher Full Text Liu Y, Pham HT, He Z, et al. : Phylogeography of the cicada Platypleura hilpa in subtropical and tropical East Asia based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes and microsatellite markers. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020; 151 : 529–544. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Łukasik P, Nazario K, Van Leuven JT, et al. : Multiple origins of interdependent endosymbiotic complexes in a genus of cicadas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2018; 115 : E226–E235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Łukasik P, Chong RA, Nazario K, et al. : One hundred mitochondrial genomes of cicadas. J. Heredity. 2019; 110 : 247–256. Publisher Full Text Marshall DC: A simple method for bracketing absolute divergence times on molecular phylogenies using multiple fossil calibration points. Am. Nat. 2008; 171 : 726–742. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Marshall DC, Hill KBR, Moulds MS, et al. : Inflation of molecular clock rates and dates: Molecular phylogenetics, biogeography, and diversification of a global cicada radiation from Australasia (Hemiptera: Cicadidae: Cicadettini). Syst. Biol. 2016; 65 : 16–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Marshall DC, Moulds M, Hill KBR, et al. : A molecular phylogeny of the cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) with a review of tribe and 926 subfamily classification. Zootaxa. 2018; 4424 : 1–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Misof B, et al. : Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution. Science. 2014; 346 : 763–767. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Montagna M, Tong KJ, Magoga G, et al. : Recalibration of the insect evolutionary time scale using Monte San Giorgio fossils suggests survival of key lineages through the End-Permian Extinction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences. 2019; 286 : 20191854. Moulin M, Aslanian D, Unternehr P: A new starting point for the south and equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Earth Sci. Rev. 2010; 98 : 1–37. Publisher Full Text Mcintosh WC, Geissman JW, Chapin CE, et al. : Calibration of the latest Eocene-Oligocene geomagnetic polarity time scale using 40Ar/39Ar dated ignimbrites. Geology. 1992; 20 : 459–463. <a target="xrefwindow" id="d51847e7580" href="https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1992)020 Publisher Full Text Moulds MS: Cicada fossils (Cicadoidea: Tettigarctidae and Cicadidae) with a review of the named fossilised Cicadidae. Zootaxa. 2018; 4438 : 443–470. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Osozawa S: BEAST v1.X tutorial, in a case of four cicada genera. protocols.io.2021. Publisher Full Text Osozawa S, Wakabayashi J: Geologically calibrated mammalian tree and the corresponding global events, including birth of human. Research Square. 2021. Publisher Full Text Osozawa S, Shinjo R, Armig R, et al. : Palaeogeographic reconstruction of the 1.55 Ma synchronous isolation of the Ryukyu Islands, Japan, and Taiwan and inflow of the Kuroshio warm current. Int. Geol. Rev. 2012; 54 : 1369–1388. Publisher Full Text Osozawa S, Vuong NV, Tich VV, et al. : Reactivation of a collisional suture by Miocene transpressional domes associated with the Red River and Song Chay detachment faults, northern Vietnam. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2015; 105 : 252–269. Publisher Full Text Osozawa S, Fukuda H, Kwon HY, et al. : Quaternary vicariance of tiger beetle, Cicindela chinensis, in Ryukyu, Japan, Taiwan and Korea—China. Entomol. Res. 2016; 46 : 122–127. Osozawa S, Shiyake S, Fukuda H, et al. : Quaternary vicariance of Platypleura (Cicadidae) in Japan, Ryukyu, and Taiwan islands. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2017a; 121 : 185–199. Publisher Full Text Osozawa S, Sato F, Wakabayashi J: Quaternary vicariance of lotic Coeliccia in the Ryukyu-Taiwan islands contrasted with lentic Copera. J. Hered. 2017b; 108 : 280–287. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Osozawa S, Kanai K, Fukuda H, et al. : Phylogeography of Ryukyu insular cicadas: Extensive vicariance by island isolation vs accidental dispersal by super typhoon. PLoS One. 2021a; 16 (5): e0244342. Publisher Full Text Osozawa S, Ito H, Nakazato H, et al. : 4D volcanic geology of Hachijo-jima islet, Izu-Bonin arc. Int. Geol. Rev. 2021b; 63 . Publisher Full Text Osozawa S, Nakejima C, Wakabayashi J: Post-Triassic Spermatophyta timetree adding the Quaternary radiated Asarum wild gingers. Research Square. 2021c. Publisher Full Text Papadopoulo A, Anastasiou I, Vogler AP: Revisiting the insect mitochondrial molecular clock: The mid-Aegean trench calibration. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2010; 27 : 1659–1672. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Perrichot V, Nel A, Néraudeau D: Gerromorphan bugs in Early Cretaceous French amber (Insecta: Heteroptera): first representatives of Gerridae and their phylogenetic and palaeoecological implications. Cretac. Res. 2005; 26 : 793–800. Publisher Full Text Petrulevičius JF: Paleogene insects from Maíz Gordo Formation, northwest Argentina: Taphonomy, diversity and paleobiogeography.Salfity JA, Marquillas RA, editors. Cenozoic Geology of the Central Andes and Argentina SCS. 2011; 337–347. Pham HT, Lee YJ, Constant J: Cicada genus Pomponia Stål, 1866 (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) from Vietnam andCambodia, with a new species, a new record, and a key to the species. Zootaxa. 2015; 3925 : 562–572. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Piirainen M, Liebisch O, Kadereit G: Phylogeny, biogeography, systematics and taxonomy of Salicornioideae (Amaranthaceae/Chenopodiaceae) – A cosmopolitan, highly specialized hygrohalophyte lineage dating back to the Oligocene. Taxon. 2017; 66 : 109–132. Publisher Full Text Poinar G Jr, Kritsky G: Morphological conservatism in the foreleg structure of cicada hatchlings, Burmacicada protera n. gen., n. sp. in Burmese amber, Dominicicada youngi n. gen., n. sp. in Dominican amber and the extant Magicicada septendecim (L.) (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Hist. Biol. 2011; 1 : 1–6. Popov YA: The first record of a fossil water bug from the Lower Jurassic of Poland (Heteroptera: Nepomoprha: Belostomatidae). Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne. 1996; 65 : 101–105. Price BJ, Marshall DC, Barker NP, et al. : Out of Africa? A dated molecular phylogeny of the cicada tribe Platypleurini Schmidt (Hemiptera: Cicadidae), with a focus on African genera and the genus Platypleura Amyot & Audinet-Serville. Syst. Entomol. 2019; 44 : 842–861. Publisher Full Text Roček Z, Dong L, Přikry T, et al. : Fossil frogs (Anura) from Shanwang (Middle Miocene; Shandong Province, China). Geobios. 2011; 44 : 499–518. Sage RF: The evolution of C4 photosynthesis. New Phytol. 2004; 161 : 341–370. Publisher Full Text Shi G, Grimaldi DA, Harlow GE, et al. : Age constraint on Burmese amber based on U-Pb dating of zircons. Cretac. Res. 2012; 37 : 155–163. Publisher Full Text Simon C, Gordon ERL, Moulds MS, et al. : Off-target capture data, endosymbiont genes and morphology reveal a relict lineage that is sister to all other singing cicadas. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2019; 128 : 1076. Publisher Full Text Smith ME, Singer B, Carroll A: 40 Ar/39 Ar geochronology of the Eocene Green River Formation, Wyoming. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 2003; 115 : 549–565. <a target="xrefwindow" id="d51847e7956" href="https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(2003)115 Publisher Full Text Suchard MA, Lemey P, Baele G, et al. : Bayesian phylogenetic and phylodynamic data integration using BEAST 1.10. Virus. Evolution. 2018; 4 : vey016. Publisher Full Text Szwedo J, Nel A: The oldest Aphid insect from the Middle Triassic of the Vosges, France. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 2011; 56 : 757–766. Publisher Full Text Taira A: Search the Earth History, Geology 3. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, Publishers; 2007; 396. (in Japanese). Tamura K, Peterso D, Peterson N, et al. : MEGA5: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2011; 28 : 2731–2739. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Thai PH, Yang JT: A contribution to the Cicadidae fauna of Vietnam (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha), with one new species and twenty new records. Zootaxa. 2009; 2249 : 1–19. Publisher Full Text Tietz O, Berner T, Matting E: Insekten aus dem Unteroligozan von Seifhennersdorf in der Oberlausitz. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Naturkundemuseums, Gorlitz. 1998; 70 : 139–154. Trilar T: Frequency modulated song of the cicada Kalabita operculata (Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadoidea) from Borneo. Russ. Entomol. J. 2006; 15 : 341–346. Urban J, Bartlett C, Cryan J: Evolution of Delphacidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea): combined-evidence phylogenetics reveals importance of grass host shifts. Syst. Entomol. 2010; 35 (4): 678–691. Publisher Full Text Walther H, Kvacek Z: Early Oligonene flora of Seifhennersdorf (Saxiny). Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, Series B, Historia Naturalis. 2007; 63 : 85–174. Whalley PES: The systematics and palaeogeography of the Lower Jurassic insects of Dorset, England. Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History (Geology). 1985; 39 : 107–189. Woodburne MO, Goin FJ, Raigemborn MS, et al. : Revised timing of the South American early Paleogene land mammal ages. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2014; 54 : 109–119. Publisher Full Text Wu LW, Yen SH, Lees DC, et al. : Phylogeny and historical biogeography of Asian Pterourus butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae): A case of intercontinental dispersal from North America to East Asia. PLoS One. 2015; 10 : e0140933. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Yang M, Wei C: On the cicada genus Nipponosemia Kato, with description of one new species from China (Hemiptera, Cicadidae). ZooKeys. 2013; 293 : 19–39. Publisher Full Text Yang Z: PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007; 24 : 1586–1591. Yoshikawa T: Paleoenvironmental change and age of the Miocene Kanomatazawa Formation in the Shiobara area, Tochigi Prefecture, central Japan. J. Geol. Soc. Jpn. 2005; 111 : 39–49. In Japanese with English abstract. Publisher Full Text Zhang C, Stadler T, Klopfstein S, et al. : Total-evidence dating under the fossilized birth-death process. Syst. Biol. 2016; 65 : 228–249. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Zhang JF: Fossil insects from Shanwang, Shandong, China. Jinan: Shandong Science and Technology; 1989; 459. Zhang JF, Sun B, Zhang XY: Miocene insects and spiders from Shanwang, Shandong. Beijing: Science Press; 1994; 298. Zhang H: Early Cretaceous insects from the Dalazi Formation of the Zhixin Basin, Jilin Province, China. Palaeoworld. 1997; 7 : 75–103. Zucol AF, Krause JM, Brea M, et al. : Emergence of grassy habitats during the greenhouse–icehouse systems transition in the Middle Eocene of southern South America. Ameghiniana. 2018; 55 : 451–482. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 5 VERSION 5 PUBLISHED 14 Mar 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 2 California State University, Fresno, Fresno, USA Soichi Osozawa Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation John Wakabayashi Roles: Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (5) version 5 Revised Published: 14 Feb 2025, 11:308 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.5 version 4 Revised Published: 09 Oct 2024, 11:308 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.4 version 3 Revised Published: 23 Apr 2024, 11:308 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.3 version 2 Revised Published: 10 Aug 2023, 11:308 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.2 version 1 Published: 14 Mar 2022, 11:308 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.1 Copyright © 2025 Osozawa S and Wakabayashi J. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Osozawa S and Wakabayashi J. Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.76068.5 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 5 VERSION 5 PUBLISHED 14 Feb 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Dietrich CH. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177914.r366525 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v5#referee-response-366525 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Mar 2025 Christopher H Dietrich , University of Illinois Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177914.r366525 The new version of the manuscript addresses my prior concerns so ... Continue reading READ ALL The new version of the manuscript addresses my prior concerns so I now think it is acceptable in its present form. -CD Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Dietrich CH. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177914.r366525 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v5#referee-response-366525 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 09 Oct 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Dietrich CH. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170027.r354651 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v4#referee-response-354651 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 29 Jan 2025 Christopher H Dietrich , University of Illinois Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170027.r354651 This interesting paper provides a detailed timetree for cicadas, combining several new minimum age calibrations for recent speciation events in Asia to some calibrations for some older divergences published previously. The methods are described in detail and the conclusions seem ... Continue reading READ ALL This interesting paper provides a detailed timetree for cicadas, combining several new minimum age calibrations for recent speciation events in Asia to some calibrations for some older divergences published previously. The methods are described in detail and the conclusions seem justified. Of particular interest is the exponential increase in nucleotide substitution rates for the gene regions used to estimate the timetree. The main remaining problem with the manuscript is that it needs considerable editing to improve the English and clarify some points that are not currently clear as written, e.g., in the abstract it is stated "The Cicadinae clade consists of specific tribes with paraphyletic relationship"; does this mean that the tribes are each paraphyletic, some tribes gave rise to others, or something else? Earlier in the abstract the statement "Tettigarctidae had a cicada basal lineage as old as 200.63 Ma"; the meaning is again unclear but presumably this could be stated more precisely as "Tettigarctidae are sister to the remaining cicadas..." Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Systematics, taxonomy, paleontology and phylogenomics of Auchenorrhyncha. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Dietrich CH. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170027.r354651 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v4#referee-response-354651 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Szwedo J. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170027.r330173 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v4#referee-response-330173 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Nov 2024 Jacek Szwedo , University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170027.r330173 The aims of research and methods are adequate. The results results are presented accurately and with justified conclusions. ... Continue reading READ ALL The aims of research and methods are adequate. The results results are presented accurately and with justified conclusions. These are well supported by the provided data, selected calibration points and results, and provided tables and figures. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: fossils, phylogeny, palaeoecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Szwedo J. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170027.r330173 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v4#referee-response-330173 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 23 Apr 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Szwedo J. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165295.r292455 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v3#referee-response-292455 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 25 Jul 2024 Jacek Szwedo , University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165295.r292455 There are several new data and interpretations concerning the classification and fossil record of cicadas and Hemiptera s whole - see attached file. Main issue is the selection and estimation of age taken for taxa used for calibration, these ... Continue reading READ ALL There are several new data and interpretations concerning the classification and fossil record of cicadas and Hemiptera s whole - see attached file. Main issue is the selection and estimation of age taken for taxa used for calibration, these are to be revised and updated according to current data, classification proposals or if other than the oldest available taxa selected the reasons should be clearly explained. In my opinion the stem and crown groups should be clearly stated and pointed which are analysed and then discussed. The text is not easy to read, especially for those not familiar with numerous existing phylogenetic, classifications and relationships hypotheses. The better calibration points selection, and use of new data (e.g. Bucher et al. 2023, Jiang et al. 2024) can change the received topologies. There are several taxonomic decisions which are not clearly explained or references, e.g. transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. Interpretation and discussion of data and results must be more detailed - the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. This reservation must be taken for higher taxa especially. A comparison with evolutionary traits observed in Delphacidae planthoppers (Urban et al 2010 [Ref-11]) closely related to Poaceae can enrich the discussion and maybe similar phaenomena can be found and discussed. Please refer to the following attachment for my additional comments on your article submission: https://f1000research.s3.amazonaws.com/linked/665193.Jaeck-Reviewer_attachment.pdf Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Jiang H, Szwedo J, Labandeira CC, Chen J, et al.: Mesozoic evolution of cicadas and their origins of vocalization and root feeding. Nat Commun . 2024; 15 (1): 376 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Bucher M, Condamine FL, Luo Y, Wang M, et al.: Phylogeny and diversification of planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha) based on a comprehensive molecular dataset and large taxon sampling. Mol Phylogenet Evol . 2023; 186 : 107862 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. BUCHER M, GIGNOUX G, SZWEDO J, BOURGOIN T: Time-traveling through fossil planthopper tegmina in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras (Insecta: Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha). Palaeoentomology . 2024; 7 (1): 1-67 Publisher Full Text 4. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a New Classification of Planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 1. What Do Fulgoridiidae Really Cover?. Annales Zoologici . 2022; 72 (4). Publisher Full Text 5. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a new classification of planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 2. Higher taxa, their names and their composition. Zootaxa . 2023; 5297 (4): 562-568 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Lambkin KJ: Revision of the Hylicellidae of the Late Triassic of Queensland (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Hylicelloidea). Zootaxa . 2020; 4790 (3): zootaxa.4790.3.7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Montagna M., Strada L., Dioli P. & Tintori A: The Middle Triassic Lagerstätte of Monte San Giorgio reveals the oldest lace bugs (Hemiptera: Tingidae): Archetingis ladinica gen n. sp n. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia . 2018. Reference Source 8. Shcherbakov D: The earliest true bugs and aphids from the Middle Triassic of France (Hemiptera). rej . 2011; 19 (1): 179-182 Publisher Full Text 9. Wang YH, Wu HY, Rédei D, Xie Q, et al.: When did the ancestor of true bugs become stinky? Disentangling the phylogenomics of Hemiptera-Heteroptera. Cladistics . 2019; 35 (1): 42-66 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Szwedo J: The unity, diversity and conformity of bugs (Hemiptera) through time. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh . 2016; 107 (2-3): 109-128 Publisher Full Text 11. URBAN J, BARTLETT C, CRYAN J: Evolution of Delphacidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea): combined-evidence phylogenetics reveals importance of grass host shifts. Systematic Entomology . 2010; 35 (4): 678-691 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: fossils, phylogeny, palaeoecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Szwedo J. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165295.r292455 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v3#referee-response-292455 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 09 Oct 2024 Soichi Osozawa , Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 09 Oct 2024 Author Response Reviewer Report 2 Views copyright 25 Jul 2024 | for Version 3 Jacek Szwedo, State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy ... Continue reading Reviewer Report 2 Views copyright 25 Jul 2024 | for Version 3 Jacek Szwedo, State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China; University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) Approved With Reservations There are several new data and interpretations concerning the classification and fossil record of cicadas and Hemiptera s whole - see attached file. ---NOT readable. Main issue is the selection and estimation of age taken for taxa used for calibration, these are to be revised and updated according to current data, classification proposals or if other than the oldest available taxa selected the reasons should be clearly explained. In my opinion the stem and crown groups should be clearly stated and pointed which are analysed and then discussed. The text is not easy to read, especially for those not familiar with numerous existing phylogenetic, classifications and relationships hypotheses. The better calibration points selection, and use of new data (e.g. Bucher et al. 2023, Jiang et al. 2024) can change the received topologies. There are several taxonomic decisions which are not clearly explained or references, e.g. transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. Interpretation and discussion of data and results must be more detailed - the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. This reservation must be taken for higher taxa especially. A comparison with evolutionary traits observed in Delphacidae planthoppers (Urban et al 2010 [Ref-11]) closely related to Poaceae can enrich the discussion and maybe similar phaenomena can be found and discussed. Thank you for review. Bucher et al. (2023) provided the age of Cicadoidea fossils in Burmage amber as 98.79 Ma. I have used this age as calibration point C, representing the stem age of Derotettiginae (i.e., the stem of Cicadoidea). Bucher et al. (2023) and other studies provide estimated ages based on node dating, which are not suitable for the present fossil age calibration. Stem and crown ages should be determined using fossil evidence. Jiang et al. (2024) and other recommended articles may include such indirect ages, but I used geologically robust fossil ages, including those from Burmese amber, for calibration. Transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. --- The transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae was originally noted as Derotettiginae in Table 2. the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. --- I have already included Cercopidae (Cicadomorpha, which comprises extant species other than those in Cicadoidea). “A3: Fossil Ledridae ( Zhang 1997) and fossil Cercopidae ( Hong 1982) were recovered from the Jehol Biota of northern China. The Jehol Biota horizon has been dated by the Ar-Ar method on associated silicic tuff at 130.7 ± 1.4 Ma ( He et al. 2006).” I cited Urban et al (2010) at the end of discussion. “The rapid diversification of Delphacini is linked to shifts in host plants, particularly from C3 to C4 grasses within the Poaceae family (Urban et al., 2010).” Please refer to the following attachment for my additional comments on your article submission: https://f1000research.s3.amazonaws.com/linked/665193.Jaeck-Reviewer_attachment.pdf Note that the data in the attachment may be lost or unreadable. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Jiang H, Szwedo J, Labandeira CC, Chen J, et al.: Mesozoic evolution of cicadas and their origins of vocalization and root feeding.Nat Commun. 2024; 15 (1): 376 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Bucher M, Condamine FL, Luo Y, Wang M, et al.: Phylogeny and diversification of planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha) based on a comprehensive molecular dataset and large taxon sampling.Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2023; 186: 107862 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. BUCHER M, GIGNOUX G, SZWEDO J, BOURGOIN T: Time-traveling through fossil planthopper tegmina in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras (Insecta: Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha). Palaeoentomology. 2024; 7 (1): 1-67 Publisher Full Text 4. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a New Classification of Planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 1. What Do Fulgoridiidae Really Cover?. Annales Zoologici. 2022; 72 (4). Publisher Full Text 5. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a new classification of planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 2. Higher taxa, their names and their composition.Zootaxa. 2023; 5297 (4): 562-568 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Lambkin KJ: Revision of the Hylicellidae of the Late Triassic of Queensland (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Hylicelloidea).Zootaxa. 2020; 4790 (3): zootaxa.4790.3.7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Montagna M., Strada L., Dioli P. & Tintori A: The Middle Triassic Lagerstätte of Monte San Giorgio reveals the oldest lace bugs (Hemiptera: Tingidae): Archetingis ladinica gen n. sp n.Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 2018. Reference Source 8. Shcherbakov D: The earliest true bugs and aphids from the Middle Triassic of France (Hemiptera). rej. 2011; 19 (1): 179-182 Publisher Full Text 9. Wang YH, Wu HY, Rédei D, Xie Q, et al.: When did the ancestor of true bugs become stinky? Disentangling the phylogenomics of Hemiptera-Heteroptera.Cladistics. 2019; 35 (1): 42-66 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Szwedo J: The unity, diversity and conformity of bugs (Hemiptera) through time. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 2016; 107 (2-3): 109-128 Publisher Full Text 11. URBAN J, BARTLETT C, CRYAN J: Evolution of Delphacidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea): combined-evidence phylogenetics reveals importance of grass host shifts. Systematic Entomology. 2010; 35 (4): 678-691 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise fossils, phylogeny, palaeoecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Reviewer Report 2 Views copyright 25 Jul 2024 | for Version 3 Jacek Szwedo, State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China; University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) Approved With Reservations There are several new data and interpretations concerning the classification and fossil record of cicadas and Hemiptera s whole - see attached file. ---NOT readable. Main issue is the selection and estimation of age taken for taxa used for calibration, these are to be revised and updated according to current data, classification proposals or if other than the oldest available taxa selected the reasons should be clearly explained. In my opinion the stem and crown groups should be clearly stated and pointed which are analysed and then discussed. The text is not easy to read, especially for those not familiar with numerous existing phylogenetic, classifications and relationships hypotheses. The better calibration points selection, and use of new data (e.g. Bucher et al. 2023, Jiang et al. 2024) can change the received topologies. There are several taxonomic decisions which are not clearly explained or references, e.g. transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. Interpretation and discussion of data and results must be more detailed - the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. This reservation must be taken for higher taxa especially. A comparison with evolutionary traits observed in Delphacidae planthoppers (Urban et al 2010 [Ref-11]) closely related to Poaceae can enrich the discussion and maybe similar phaenomena can be found and discussed. Thank you for review. Bucher et al. (2023) provided the age of Cicadoidea fossils in Burmage amber as 98.79 Ma. I have used this age as calibration point C, representing the stem age of Derotettiginae (i.e., the stem of Cicadoidea). Bucher et al. (2023) and other studies provide estimated ages based on node dating, which are not suitable for the present fossil age calibration. Stem and crown ages should be determined using fossil evidence. Jiang et al. (2024) and other recommended articles may include such indirect ages, but I used geologically robust fossil ages, including those from Burmese amber, for calibration. Transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. --- The transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae was originally noted as Derotettiginae in Table 2. the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. --- I have already included Cercopidae (Cicadomorpha, which comprises extant species other than those in Cicadoidea). “A3: Fossil Ledridae ( Zhang 1997) and fossil Cercopidae ( Hong 1982) were recovered from the Jehol Biota of northern China. The Jehol Biota horizon has been dated by the Ar-Ar method on associated silicic tuff at 130.7 ± 1.4 Ma ( He et al. 2006).” I cited Urban et al (2010) at the end of discussion. “The rapid diversification of Delphacini is linked to shifts in host plants, particularly from C3 to C4 grasses within the Poaceae family (Urban et al., 2010).” Please refer to the following attachment for my additional comments on your article submission: https://f1000research.s3.amazonaws.com/linked/665193.Jaeck-Reviewer_attachment.pdf Note that the data in the attachment may be lost or unreadable. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Jiang H, Szwedo J, Labandeira CC, Chen J, et al.: Mesozoic evolution of cicadas and their origins of vocalization and root feeding.Nat Commun. 2024; 15 (1): 376 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Bucher M, Condamine FL, Luo Y, Wang M, et al.: Phylogeny and diversification of planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha) based on a comprehensive molecular dataset and large taxon sampling.Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2023; 186: 107862 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. BUCHER M, GIGNOUX G, SZWEDO J, BOURGOIN T: Time-traveling through fossil planthopper tegmina in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras (Insecta: Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha). Palaeoentomology. 2024; 7 (1): 1-67 Publisher Full Text 4. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a New Classification of Planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 1. What Do Fulgoridiidae Really Cover?. Annales Zoologici. 2022; 72 (4). Publisher Full Text 5. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a new classification of planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 2. Higher taxa, their names and their composition.Zootaxa. 2023; 5297 (4): 562-568 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Lambkin KJ: Revision of the Hylicellidae of the Late Triassic of Queensland (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Hylicelloidea).Zootaxa. 2020; 4790 (3): zootaxa.4790.3.7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Montagna M., Strada L., Dioli P. & Tintori A: The Middle Triassic Lagerstätte of Monte San Giorgio reveals the oldest lace bugs (Hemiptera: Tingidae): Archetingis ladinica gen n. sp n.Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 2018. Reference Source 8. Shcherbakov D: The earliest true bugs and aphids from the Middle Triassic of France (Hemiptera). rej. 2011; 19 (1): 179-182 Publisher Full Text 9. Wang YH, Wu HY, Rédei D, Xie Q, et al.: When did the ancestor of true bugs become stinky? Disentangling the phylogenomics of Hemiptera-Heteroptera.Cladistics. 2019; 35 (1): 42-66 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Szwedo J: The unity, diversity and conformity of bugs (Hemiptera) through time. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 2016; 107 (2-3): 109-128 Publisher Full Text 11. URBAN J, BARTLETT C, CRYAN J: Evolution of Delphacidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea): combined-evidence phylogenetics reveals importance of grass host shifts. Systematic Entomology. 2010; 35 (4): 678-691 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise fossils, phylogeny, palaeoecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 09 Oct 2024 Soichi Osozawa , Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 09 Oct 2024 Author Response Reviewer Report 2 Views copyright 25 Jul 2024 | for Version 3 Jacek Szwedo, State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy ... Continue reading Reviewer Report 2 Views copyright 25 Jul 2024 | for Version 3 Jacek Szwedo, State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China; University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) Approved With Reservations There are several new data and interpretations concerning the classification and fossil record of cicadas and Hemiptera s whole - see attached file. ---NOT readable. Main issue is the selection and estimation of age taken for taxa used for calibration, these are to be revised and updated according to current data, classification proposals or if other than the oldest available taxa selected the reasons should be clearly explained. In my opinion the stem and crown groups should be clearly stated and pointed which are analysed and then discussed. The text is not easy to read, especially for those not familiar with numerous existing phylogenetic, classifications and relationships hypotheses. The better calibration points selection, and use of new data (e.g. Bucher et al. 2023, Jiang et al. 2024) can change the received topologies. There are several taxonomic decisions which are not clearly explained or references, e.g. transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. Interpretation and discussion of data and results must be more detailed - the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. This reservation must be taken for higher taxa especially. A comparison with evolutionary traits observed in Delphacidae planthoppers (Urban et al 2010 [Ref-11]) closely related to Poaceae can enrich the discussion and maybe similar phaenomena can be found and discussed. Thank you for review. Bucher et al. (2023) provided the age of Cicadoidea fossils in Burmage amber as 98.79 Ma. I have used this age as calibration point C, representing the stem age of Derotettiginae (i.e., the stem of Cicadoidea). Bucher et al. (2023) and other studies provide estimated ages based on node dating, which are not suitable for the present fossil age calibration. Stem and crown ages should be determined using fossil evidence. Jiang et al. (2024) and other recommended articles may include such indirect ages, but I used geologically robust fossil ages, including those from Burmese amber, for calibration. Transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. --- The transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae was originally noted as Derotettiginae in Table 2. the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. --- I have already included Cercopidae (Cicadomorpha, which comprises extant species other than those in Cicadoidea). “A3: Fossil Ledridae ( Zhang 1997) and fossil Cercopidae ( Hong 1982) were recovered from the Jehol Biota of northern China. The Jehol Biota horizon has been dated by the Ar-Ar method on associated silicic tuff at 130.7 ± 1.4 Ma ( He et al. 2006).” I cited Urban et al (2010) at the end of discussion. “The rapid diversification of Delphacini is linked to shifts in host plants, particularly from C3 to C4 grasses within the Poaceae family (Urban et al., 2010).” Please refer to the following attachment for my additional comments on your article submission: https://f1000research.s3.amazonaws.com/linked/665193.Jaeck-Reviewer_attachment.pdf Note that the data in the attachment may be lost or unreadable. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Jiang H, Szwedo J, Labandeira CC, Chen J, et al.: Mesozoic evolution of cicadas and their origins of vocalization and root feeding.Nat Commun. 2024; 15 (1): 376 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Bucher M, Condamine FL, Luo Y, Wang M, et al.: Phylogeny and diversification of planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha) based on a comprehensive molecular dataset and large taxon sampling.Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2023; 186: 107862 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. BUCHER M, GIGNOUX G, SZWEDO J, BOURGOIN T: Time-traveling through fossil planthopper tegmina in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras (Insecta: Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha). Palaeoentomology. 2024; 7 (1): 1-67 Publisher Full Text 4. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a New Classification of Planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 1. What Do Fulgoridiidae Really Cover?. Annales Zoologici. 2022; 72 (4). Publisher Full Text 5. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a new classification of planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 2. Higher taxa, their names and their composition.Zootaxa. 2023; 5297 (4): 562-568 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Lambkin KJ: Revision of the Hylicellidae of the Late Triassic of Queensland (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Hylicelloidea).Zootaxa. 2020; 4790 (3): zootaxa.4790.3.7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Montagna M., Strada L., Dioli P. & Tintori A: The Middle Triassic Lagerstätte of Monte San Giorgio reveals the oldest lace bugs (Hemiptera: Tingidae): Archetingis ladinica gen n. sp n.Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 2018. Reference Source 8. Shcherbakov D: The earliest true bugs and aphids from the Middle Triassic of France (Hemiptera). rej. 2011; 19 (1): 179-182 Publisher Full Text 9. Wang YH, Wu HY, Rédei D, Xie Q, et al.: When did the ancestor of true bugs become stinky? Disentangling the phylogenomics of Hemiptera-Heteroptera.Cladistics. 2019; 35 (1): 42-66 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Szwedo J: The unity, diversity and conformity of bugs (Hemiptera) through time. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 2016; 107 (2-3): 109-128 Publisher Full Text 11. URBAN J, BARTLETT C, CRYAN J: Evolution of Delphacidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea): combined-evidence phylogenetics reveals importance of grass host shifts. Systematic Entomology. 2010; 35 (4): 678-691 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise fossils, phylogeny, palaeoecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Reviewer Report 2 Views copyright 25 Jul 2024 | for Version 3 Jacek Szwedo, State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China; University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) Approved With Reservations There are several new data and interpretations concerning the classification and fossil record of cicadas and Hemiptera s whole - see attached file. ---NOT readable. Main issue is the selection and estimation of age taken for taxa used for calibration, these are to be revised and updated according to current data, classification proposals or if other than the oldest available taxa selected the reasons should be clearly explained. In my opinion the stem and crown groups should be clearly stated and pointed which are analysed and then discussed. The text is not easy to read, especially for those not familiar with numerous existing phylogenetic, classifications and relationships hypotheses. The better calibration points selection, and use of new data (e.g. Bucher et al. 2023, Jiang et al. 2024) can change the received topologies. There are several taxonomic decisions which are not clearly explained or references, e.g. transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. Interpretation and discussion of data and results must be more detailed - the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. This reservation must be taken for higher taxa especially. A comparison with evolutionary traits observed in Delphacidae planthoppers (Urban et al 2010 [Ref-11]) closely related to Poaceae can enrich the discussion and maybe similar phaenomena can be found and discussed. Thank you for review. Bucher et al. (2023) provided the age of Cicadoidea fossils in Burmage amber as 98.79 Ma. I have used this age as calibration point C, representing the stem age of Derotettiginae (i.e., the stem of Cicadoidea). Bucher et al. (2023) and other studies provide estimated ages based on node dating, which are not suitable for the present fossil age calibration. Stem and crown ages should be determined using fossil evidence. Jiang et al. (2024) and other recommended articles may include such indirect ages, but I used geologically robust fossil ages, including those from Burmese amber, for calibration. Transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. --- The transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae was originally noted as Derotettiginae in Table 2. the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. --- I have already included Cercopidae (Cicadomorpha, which comprises extant species other than those in Cicadoidea). “A3: Fossil Ledridae ( Zhang 1997) and fossil Cercopidae ( Hong 1982) were recovered from the Jehol Biota of northern China. The Jehol Biota horizon has been dated by the Ar-Ar method on associated silicic tuff at 130.7 ± 1.4 Ma ( He et al. 2006).” I cited Urban et al (2010) at the end of discussion. “The rapid diversification of Delphacini is linked to shifts in host plants, particularly from C3 to C4 grasses within the Poaceae family (Urban et al., 2010).” Please refer to the following attachment for my additional comments on your article submission: https://f1000research.s3.amazonaws.com/linked/665193.Jaeck-Reviewer_attachment.pdf Note that the data in the attachment may be lost or unreadable. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Jiang H, Szwedo J, Labandeira CC, Chen J, et al.: Mesozoic evolution of cicadas and their origins of vocalization and root feeding.Nat Commun. 2024; 15 (1): 376 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Bucher M, Condamine FL, Luo Y, Wang M, et al.: Phylogeny and diversification of planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha) based on a comprehensive molecular dataset and large taxon sampling.Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2023; 186: 107862 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. BUCHER M, GIGNOUX G, SZWEDO J, BOURGOIN T: Time-traveling through fossil planthopper tegmina in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras (Insecta: Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha). Palaeoentomology. 2024; 7 (1): 1-67 Publisher Full Text 4. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a New Classification of Planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 1. What Do Fulgoridiidae Really Cover?. Annales Zoologici. 2022; 72 (4). Publisher Full Text 5. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a new classification of planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 2. Higher taxa, their names and their composition.Zootaxa. 2023; 5297 (4): 562-568 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Lambkin KJ: Revision of the Hylicellidae of the Late Triassic of Queensland (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Hylicelloidea).Zootaxa. 2020; 4790 (3): zootaxa.4790.3.7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Montagna M., Strada L., Dioli P. & Tintori A: The Middle Triassic Lagerstätte of Monte San Giorgio reveals the oldest lace bugs (Hemiptera: Tingidae): Archetingis ladinica gen n. sp n.Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 2018. Reference Source 8. Shcherbakov D: The earliest true bugs and aphids from the Middle Triassic of France (Hemiptera). rej. 2011; 19 (1): 179-182 Publisher Full Text 9. Wang YH, Wu HY, Rédei D, Xie Q, et al.: When did the ancestor of true bugs become stinky? Disentangling the phylogenomics of Hemiptera-Heteroptera.Cladistics. 2019; 35 (1): 42-66 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Szwedo J: The unity, diversity and conformity of bugs (Hemiptera) through time. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 2016; 107 (2-3): 109-128 Publisher Full Text 11. URBAN J, BARTLETT C, CRYAN J: Evolution of Delphacidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea): combined-evidence phylogenetics reveals importance of grass host shifts. Systematic Entomology. 2010; 35 (4): 678-691 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise fossils, phylogeny, palaeoecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 10 Aug 2023 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Song F. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154265.r260431 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v2#referee-response-260431 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 18 Apr 2024 Fan Song , China Agricultural University, Beijing, China Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154265.r260431 This study primarily focused on estimating the divergence times of Cicadoidea. Compared to previous studies, the strength of this research lies in its inclusion of local data and data from enigmatic cicadas of the Ryukyu Islands. Exploring cicada biodiversity in ... Continue reading READ ALL This study primarily focused on estimating the divergence times of Cicadoidea. Compared to previous studies, the strength of this research lies in its inclusion of local data and data from enigmatic cicadas of the Ryukyu Islands. Exploring cicada biodiversity in the Ryukyu Islands and surrounding areas, as well as their historical evolution, is quite intriguing. A highlight of the paper is the addition of 92 new data points. Additionally, the discussion includes extensive content on cicada biodiversity and evolutionary history, which is very impressive. However, this manuscript still has some issues, such as poor readability of the figures. I think some of the reasonable suggestions from the previous reviewers haven't been addressed by the authors. Such as "A typo in Abstract: parapheletic -> paraphyletic.", "It would be better to replace "country" with "sampling locality" in the title of Table 1". I haven't seen evidence of them being addressed in the revisions. In addition to the above, I suggest the public sharing and presentation of intermediate data, such as alignment matrices, input files and output tree for BEAST. I appreciate and agree with the suggestion to provide a detailed description of the software analysis procedures. The materials and methods section in this manuscript reads more like a step-by-step tutorial rather than a description typically found in research articles. If a thorough description is desired, perhaps it would be more suitable to include it in the supplementary materials. The following comments elaborate some places where the improvements can be made. There's confusion in the description. The DNA sequences used are COI and 18S rRNA. However, in both the ‘Materials and Methods’ and ‘Results sections’, the description of Figure 3 mentions COI and 16S rRNA as well as COI and 18S rRNA simultaneously. The captions for Figures 1 and 3 lack explanations for the different coloured asterisks, especially the red pentagon and the meaning of the small branches on the right side of the images. In Figures 1­–3, the scatter plot of base substitution rate needs to specify the data used for the X-axis and Y-axis. In the Materials and Methods, I believe it's important to explain the conceptual rationale behind the design of base substitution rate. The estimated divergence time ranges mentioned in the manuscript should ideally maintain the same number of decimal places for consistency. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Insect Phylogeny; Genomics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Song F. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154265.r260431 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v2#referee-response-260431 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Mar 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Duchêne DA. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.80022.r184588 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v1#referee-response-184588 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Aug 2023 David A Duchêne , Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.80022.r184588 In this study, Osozawa and Wakabayashi examine the timing of the splits within the Cicadas using a Bayesian framework for phylogenetic analysis. The motivation for the study and data are well presented. However, the methods have large amounts of superfluous ... Continue reading READ ALL In this study, Osozawa and Wakabayashi examine the timing of the splits within the Cicadas using a Bayesian framework for phylogenetic analysis. The motivation for the study and data are well presented. However, the methods have large amounts of superfluous information that makes them appear confusing. Overall, the manuscript is going in a good direction, but requires substantial streamlining. My main comment is on the description of BEAST. For the purposes of this study, BEAST v1 and 2 should make very little difference. In fact, it would be surprising to find any difference in results whatsoever, unless the analyses failed to converge to stationarity. The differences highlighted by the authors, such as in the BEAUti interface, are not meaningful to the analyses. Therefore, the authors should consider removing any comparison between the software, and only mention BEAST once and very briefly in the methods. Far more important is the models chosen for analysis using BEAST. At the moment these details seem buried in between the discussion about the software versions. I suggest the authors replace any sections about the BEAST versions, and exclude BEAST from section headings, leaving simply a section on "Molecular dating". Importantly, the authors do not mention how they assessed convergence of the MCMC chain to stationarity (e.g., effective sample sizes, multiple runs, and visual assessment, or similar). There is substantial redundancy in the figures, which is confusing to the untrained eye. The authors should consider using a single main tree figure with the primary results and icons to indicate which analyses were congruent. This would make the study far more succinct and intuitive. The excessive emphasis on the software versions obscures the true emphasis of the study: Cicada evolution. The authors should consider re-framing the Abstract and Introduction to focus on the previous biological findings on the topic. The methodological considerations are secondary and should be left to the methods. Otherwise, the study appears to primarily focus on a debate about methods, which is not the case. The emphasis should be on the novel molecular and fossil data, which are the true major source of novel insights in the study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Phylogenetic modelling, molecular evolution, molecular dating. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Duchêne DA. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.80022.r184588 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v1#referee-response-184588 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 24 Aug 2023 Soichi Osozawa , Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 24 Aug 2023 Author Response copyright 02 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 David A Duchêne Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark In this study, Osozawa ... Continue reading copyright 02 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 David A Duchêne Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark In this study, Osozawa and Wakabayashi examine the timing of the splits within the Cicadas using a Bayesian framework for phylogenetic analysis. The motivation for the study and data are well presented. However, the methods have large amounts of superfluous information that makes them appear confusing. Overall, the manuscript is going in a good direction, but requires substantial streamlining. Thank you for your review and approval. I plan to compare MCMCTree to BEAST v1 and eagerly await the MCMCTree GUI for Mac. If you are involved in the development of MCMCTree, I appreciate your contributions to the field. My main comment is on the description of BEAST. For the purposes of this study, BEAST v1 and 2 should make very little difference. In fact, it would be surprising to find any difference in results whatsoever, unless the analyses failed to converge to stationarity. The differences highlighted by the authors, such as in the BEAUti interface, are not meaningful to the analyses. Therefore, the authors should consider removing any comparison between the software, and only mention BEAST once and very briefly in the methods. Regarding the comparison to BEAST v2, I understand that it has undergone significant modifications and is distinct from v1, even though they share some developers. If you prefer, you may choose to use BEAST v1 for this study. Far more important is the models chosen for analysis using BEAST. At the moment these details seem buried in between the discussion about the software versions. I suggest the authors replace any sections about the BEAST versions, and exclude BEAST from section headings, leaving simply a section on "Molecular dating". Importantly, the authors do not mention how they assessed convergence of the MCMC chain to stationarity (e.g., effective sample sizes, multiple runs, and visual assessment, or similar). Title "Molecular dating" may be a suggestion to avoid negative review for us, but I would like to describe details. It is important to emphasize that a larger sample size and genome size, along with an increased MCMC chain, is unrelated to dating and calibrating the tree. The MCMC chain is retained at its default settings. There is substantial redundancy in the figures, which is confusing to the untrained eye. The authors should consider using a single main tree figure with the primary results and icons to indicate which analyses were congruent. This would make the study far more succinct and intuitive. I have simplified Fig. 1 to the best of my ability. The node data, including base substitution rates, may be visualized in FigTree, created also by MCMCTree. The excessive emphasis on the software versions obscures the true emphasis of the study: Cicada evolution. The authors should consider re-framing the Abstract and Introduction to focus on the previous biological findings on the topic. The methodological considerations are secondary and should be left to the methods. Otherwise, the study appears to primarily focus on a debate about methods, which is not the case. The emphasis should be on the novel molecular and fossil data, which are the true major source of novel insights in the study. I am emphasizing the increase in base substitution rate towards the present. To achieve this, the fossil dating process in BEAST v1 is thoroughly described. However, it is important to note that dating by MCMCTree and BEAST v2 does not align with our results, possibly due to the impact of maximum age assumptions. copyright 02 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 David A Duchêne Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark In this study, Osozawa and Wakabayashi examine the timing of the splits within the Cicadas using a Bayesian framework for phylogenetic analysis. The motivation for the study and data are well presented. However, the methods have large amounts of superfluous information that makes them appear confusing. Overall, the manuscript is going in a good direction, but requires substantial streamlining. Thank you for your review and approval. I plan to compare MCMCTree to BEAST v1 and eagerly await the MCMCTree GUI for Mac. If you are involved in the development of MCMCTree, I appreciate your contributions to the field. My main comment is on the description of BEAST. For the purposes of this study, BEAST v1 and 2 should make very little difference. In fact, it would be surprising to find any difference in results whatsoever, unless the analyses failed to converge to stationarity. The differences highlighted by the authors, such as in the BEAUti interface, are not meaningful to the analyses. Therefore, the authors should consider removing any comparison between the software, and only mention BEAST once and very briefly in the methods. Regarding the comparison to BEAST v2, I understand that it has undergone significant modifications and is distinct from v1, even though they share some developers. If you prefer, you may choose to use BEAST v1 for this study. Far more important is the models chosen for analysis using BEAST. At the moment these details seem buried in between the discussion about the software versions. I suggest the authors replace any sections about the BEAST versions, and exclude BEAST from section headings, leaving simply a section on "Molecular dating". Importantly, the authors do not mention how they assessed convergence of the MCMC chain to stationarity (e.g., effective sample sizes, multiple runs, and visual assessment, or similar). Title "Molecular dating" may be a suggestion to avoid negative review for us, but I would like to describe details. It is important to emphasize that a larger sample size and genome size, along with an increased MCMC chain, is unrelated to dating and calibrating the tree. The MCMC chain is retained at its default settings. There is substantial redundancy in the figures, which is confusing to the untrained eye. The authors should consider using a single main tree figure with the primary results and icons to indicate which analyses were congruent. This would make the study far more succinct and intuitive. I have simplified Fig. 1 to the best of my ability. The node data, including base substitution rates, may be visualized in FigTree, created also by MCMCTree. The excessive emphasis on the software versions obscures the true emphasis of the study: Cicada evolution. The authors should consider re-framing the Abstract and Introduction to focus on the previous biological findings on the topic. The methodological considerations are secondary and should be left to the methods. Otherwise, the study appears to primarily focus on a debate about methods, which is not the case. The emphasis should be on the novel molecular and fossil data, which are the true major source of novel insights in the study. I am emphasizing the increase in base substitution rate towards the present. To achieve this, the fossil dating process in BEAST v1 is thoroughly described. However, it is important to note that dating by MCMCTree and BEAST v2 does not align with our results, possibly due to the impact of maximum age assumptions. Competing Interests: No competing interest. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 24 Aug 2023 Soichi Osozawa , Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 24 Aug 2023 Author Response copyright 02 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 David A Duchêne Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark In this study, Osozawa ... Continue reading copyright 02 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 David A Duchêne Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark In this study, Osozawa and Wakabayashi examine the timing of the splits within the Cicadas using a Bayesian framework for phylogenetic analysis. The motivation for the study and data are well presented. However, the methods have large amounts of superfluous information that makes them appear confusing. Overall, the manuscript is going in a good direction, but requires substantial streamlining. Thank you for your review and approval. I plan to compare MCMCTree to BEAST v1 and eagerly await the MCMCTree GUI for Mac. If you are involved in the development of MCMCTree, I appreciate your contributions to the field. My main comment is on the description of BEAST. For the purposes of this study, BEAST v1 and 2 should make very little difference. In fact, it would be surprising to find any difference in results whatsoever, unless the analyses failed to converge to stationarity. The differences highlighted by the authors, such as in the BEAUti interface, are not meaningful to the analyses. Therefore, the authors should consider removing any comparison between the software, and only mention BEAST once and very briefly in the methods. Regarding the comparison to BEAST v2, I understand that it has undergone significant modifications and is distinct from v1, even though they share some developers. If you prefer, you may choose to use BEAST v1 for this study. Far more important is the models chosen for analysis using BEAST. At the moment these details seem buried in between the discussion about the software versions. I suggest the authors replace any sections about the BEAST versions, and exclude BEAST from section headings, leaving simply a section on "Molecular dating". Importantly, the authors do not mention how they assessed convergence of the MCMC chain to stationarity (e.g., effective sample sizes, multiple runs, and visual assessment, or similar). Title "Molecular dating" may be a suggestion to avoid negative review for us, but I would like to describe details. It is important to emphasize that a larger sample size and genome size, along with an increased MCMC chain, is unrelated to dating and calibrating the tree. The MCMC chain is retained at its default settings. There is substantial redundancy in the figures, which is confusing to the untrained eye. The authors should consider using a single main tree figure with the primary results and icons to indicate which analyses were congruent. This would make the study far more succinct and intuitive. I have simplified Fig. 1 to the best of my ability. The node data, including base substitution rates, may be visualized in FigTree, created also by MCMCTree. The excessive emphasis on the software versions obscures the true emphasis of the study: Cicada evolution. The authors should consider re-framing the Abstract and Introduction to focus on the previous biological findings on the topic. The methodological considerations are secondary and should be left to the methods. Otherwise, the study appears to primarily focus on a debate about methods, which is not the case. The emphasis should be on the novel molecular and fossil data, which are the true major source of novel insights in the study. I am emphasizing the increase in base substitution rate towards the present. To achieve this, the fossil dating process in BEAST v1 is thoroughly described. However, it is important to note that dating by MCMCTree and BEAST v2 does not align with our results, possibly due to the impact of maximum age assumptions. copyright 02 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 David A Duchêne Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark In this study, Osozawa and Wakabayashi examine the timing of the splits within the Cicadas using a Bayesian framework for phylogenetic analysis. The motivation for the study and data are well presented. However, the methods have large amounts of superfluous information that makes them appear confusing. Overall, the manuscript is going in a good direction, but requires substantial streamlining. Thank you for your review and approval. I plan to compare MCMCTree to BEAST v1 and eagerly await the MCMCTree GUI for Mac. If you are involved in the development of MCMCTree, I appreciate your contributions to the field. My main comment is on the description of BEAST. For the purposes of this study, BEAST v1 and 2 should make very little difference. In fact, it would be surprising to find any difference in results whatsoever, unless the analyses failed to converge to stationarity. The differences highlighted by the authors, such as in the BEAUti interface, are not meaningful to the analyses. Therefore, the authors should consider removing any comparison between the software, and only mention BEAST once and very briefly in the methods. Regarding the comparison to BEAST v2, I understand that it has undergone significant modifications and is distinct from v1, even though they share some developers. If you prefer, you may choose to use BEAST v1 for this study. Far more important is the models chosen for analysis using BEAST. At the moment these details seem buried in between the discussion about the software versions. I suggest the authors replace any sections about the BEAST versions, and exclude BEAST from section headings, leaving simply a section on "Molecular dating". Importantly, the authors do not mention how they assessed convergence of the MCMC chain to stationarity (e.g., effective sample sizes, multiple runs, and visual assessment, or similar). Title "Molecular dating" may be a suggestion to avoid negative review for us, but I would like to describe details. It is important to emphasize that a larger sample size and genome size, along with an increased MCMC chain, is unrelated to dating and calibrating the tree. The MCMC chain is retained at its default settings. There is substantial redundancy in the figures, which is confusing to the untrained eye. The authors should consider using a single main tree figure with the primary results and icons to indicate which analyses were congruent. This would make the study far more succinct and intuitive. I have simplified Fig. 1 to the best of my ability. The node data, including base substitution rates, may be visualized in FigTree, created also by MCMCTree. The excessive emphasis on the software versions obscures the true emphasis of the study: Cicada evolution. The authors should consider re-framing the Abstract and Introduction to focus on the previous biological findings on the topic. The methodological considerations are secondary and should be left to the methods. Otherwise, the study appears to primarily focus on a debate about methods, which is not the case. The emphasis should be on the novel molecular and fossil data, which are the true major source of novel insights in the study. I am emphasizing the increase in base substitution rate towards the present. To achieve this, the fossil dating process in BEAST v1 is thoroughly described. However, it is important to note that dating by MCMCTree and BEAST v2 does not align with our results, possibly due to the impact of maximum age assumptions. Competing Interests: No competing interest. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kong S. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.80022.r179259 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v1#referee-response-179259 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Jun 2023 Sungsik Kong , University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.80022.r179259 The main objective of this study is to present a time-calibrated tree of cicada species reconstructed using BEAST v1.X. The trees contain crypic cicada species from Ryukyu islands in addition to the existing data presented in the previous studies. The ... Continue reading READ ALL The main objective of this study is to present a time-calibrated tree of cicada species reconstructed using BEAST v1.X. The trees contain crypic cicada species from Ryukyu islands in addition to the existing data presented in the previous studies. The authors show improved taxonomy of some of the major cicada groups. Moreover the authors suggest an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. While the content of the manuscript is interesting, it requires substantial improvement and is not ready for indexing. The following comments elaborate some places where the improvements can be made. In general, the manuscript is not easy to understand. It is understandable that English may not be the authors' first language, however, an academic manuscript must be written clearly. For example, the last sentence of Abstract seems to be not connecting with the previous sentences. The first sentence of Introduction is excessively long. In figure 1, is is not clear what it means by "maximum" COI sequence. It is not clear what is the inserted figure. I assume it is the plot on the left side with white background. These are also called as 'incets' later in the manuscript. How about labeling these as a) and b)? Here, y-axis is not labeled. It is not clear what it means by the intersection for the curve and what it represents biologically. Green or red starts and the values corresponding to it is never explained in the caption. Basically figure 2 is an identical tree as what is presented in figure 1. Again, the caption is very difficult to understand. Red and green stars and the values associated with them are never explained. The three values at the node in the tree are never explained. Figure 3 has similar problems. More work is needed in presenting the trees. Also, the authors mention in the caption of Figure 3 that the rate is a 'little' slower than that of in Figures 1 and 2, but it is what it means by 'a little', which is a subjective description. The authors mention that the tree topology (based on COI) was unaffected by 18S rRNA. In other words, Figures 1, 2, and 3 are the same trees. If this is true, I am not sure presenting three identical trees is a good practice. Moreover, the authors must explore if the congruence occurred because they actually are congruent or simply the signals in 18S rRNA is too small to override the signals in COI. It would be interesting to explore the tree based on 18S rRNA. typo {Abstract} parapheletic -> paraphyletic. typo {Figure 2} OUTs -> OTUs. substrituions/site/myr and s/s/myr are used interchangeably. It would be a good idea to define for the first time and stick to the abbreviated version. Table 1 has a header labeled as 'country', but in fact, 'sampling locality' might be a better description of the content. Also, it might be a better to specify what accession numbers the authors are referring to, GenBank? Table 2 caption must be improved. It is unclear how the authors decided to use HKY model for the BEAST analysis. The authors mentioned that the 95\% highest posterior density for confidence intervals of ages are not shown in Figure 1--3 to avoid visual complexity. Is it going to be available in supplementary material? This is important information to verify authors' claims regarding the node ages in the manuscript. Figure 4 mentions the number of base changes for whole mitochondrial gene, but the two plots are based only on COI and 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. The caption needs improvement. In results, the authors refer to Figure 3 as COI + 16S rRNA. It seemed like the authors were working on 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. The authors mentioned that the rate has exponentially increased into Holocene based on the incets of Figure 1--3. But no Holocene was labeled anywhere in these figures. Also, the authors stated the curves and rates are similar for the incets in Figure 1,2 and 3, but it is hard to understand how the authors concluded that they are 'similar', which is a very subjective description. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Phylogenetics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kong S. Reviewer Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.80022.r179259 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v1#referee-response-179259 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Jul 2023 Soichi Osozawa , Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 20 Jul 2023 Author Response copyright 30 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Sungsik Kong, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) NOT APPROVED info_outline The main objective ... Continue reading copyright 30 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Sungsik Kong, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) NOT APPROVED info_outline The main objective of this study is to present a time-calibrated tree of cicada species reconstructed using BEAST v1.X. The trees contain crypic cicada species from Ryukyu islands in addition to the existing data presented in the previous studies. The authors show improved taxonomy of some of the major cicada groups. Moreover the authors suggest an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. While the content of the manuscript is interesting, it requires substantial improvement and is not ready for indexing. The following comments elaborate some places where the improvements can be made. Thank you for your review, and we appreciate your attention to our main insight and new finding regarding the exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. Although we acknowledge that our experience with BEAST v1. X and the calibration method is limited, we recommend that you become a BEAST v1.X user, as it will provide you with the tools and resources to address your queries effectively. Utilizing BEAST v1.X will enable you to delve deeper into the subject matter and gain a better understanding of the findings we presented. In general, the manuscript is not easy to understand. It is understandable that English may not be the authors' first language, however, an academic manuscript must be written clearly. We appreciate your confidence in the writing quality of the present manuscript. Considering that John Wakabayashi is a native English speaker, it is likely that the manuscript is indeed well-written. However, we understand your desire for a thorough review of the English language in the R1 manuscripts. For example, the last sentence of Abstract seems to be not connecting with the previous sentences. “We estimated base substitution rate as a function of age, and the result strongly indicates an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time.” Is connected to next sentence “The consequent increase in cicada biodiversity, including generation of cryptic species in the Ryukyu Islands and surroundings, may have been driven by the generation and spreading of C4 grasses and coeval Quaternary climate change.” The first sentence of Introduction is excessively long. It is crucial to emphasize the specific type of gene used in the phylogenetic analyses, and our current COI and 18S rRNA sequence data may not be sufficient for our study. Addressing these concerns, we reviewed here the significance of utilizing an appropriate and comprehensive set of genes for the recent trend of phylogenetic analyses for cicadas. In figure 1, is not clear what it means by "maximum" COI sequence. “1,534 bp in maximum”, not “maximum COI sequence”. We will revise in R1 manuscript. It is not clear what is the inserted figure. I assume it is the plot on the left side with white background. These are also called as 'inserts' later in the manuscript. How about labeling these as a) and b)? Here, y-axis is not labeled. The inset was made by node data shown in Fig. 2. In R1, we will improve the expression. Y axis is Ma, or you questioned no species name? It is not clear what it means by the intersection for the curve and what it represents biologically. To draw the approximate curve, better to apply the intersection data, and we applied rate median obtained from Tracer. Green or red starts and the values corresponding to it is never explained in the caption. You will find the captions within Fig. 1, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Basically figure 2 is an identical tree as what is presented in figure 1. We acknowledge the feedback provided by Jessica Ware, a reviewer of our dragonfly manuscript, regarding Figure 2 being overly crowded. To address this concern, we have made revisions by dividing the scientific content of Figure 2 into simplified and full version figures, namely Figures 1 and 2, respectively. It is important to note that both figures are identical, as you correctly pointed out. By providing simplified and full versions of the figure, we aim to improve the clarity and readability of the scientific information presented. This division allows readers to quickly grasp the main concepts in the simplified version, while still having access to the more detailed information in the full version if desired. We appreciate the valuable input from Jessica Ware and are grateful for her suggestion to enhance the visual presentation of our manuscript. Thank you for highlighting this issue, and we hope these revisions address the concern effectively. Again, the caption is very difficult to understand. Red and green stars and the values associated with them are never explained. The three values at the node in the tree are never explained. You will find the captions within Fig. 2, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Probably see also main text. Figure 3 has similar problems. More work is needed in presenting the trees. Fig. 3 was presented to compare COI + 18S rRNA tree vs solely COI tree in Figs. 1 and 3. Allow us here too busy figure without simplified figure. Also, the authors mention in the caption of Figure 3 that the rate is a 'little' slower than that of in Figures 1 and 2, but it is what it means by 'a little', which is a subjective description. Rate median 0.0114 in Fig. 3 inset is a little slower than 0.0128 in Figs. 1 and 2, reflecting Fig. 3 was considered slower rated (not sensitive) 18S rRNA data. The authors mention that the tree topology (based on COI) was unaffected by 18S rRNA. In other words, Figures 1, 2, and 3 are the same trees. If this is true, I am not sure presenting three identical trees is a good practice. Moreover, the authors must explore if the congruence occurred because they actually are congruent or simply the signals in 18S rRNA is too small to override the signals in COI. It would be interesting to explore the tree based on 18S rRNA. Note that COI tree is for 352 specimens and tips, and COI + 18S rRNA tree is for 1492 specimens and tips, and not strictly identical and congruent. 18S rRNA tree is “low resolution” and discordant COI tree. Seealso “Why was BEAST2 not used”. typo {Abstract} parapheletic -> paraphyletic. In R1, we revise. typo {Figure 2} OUTs -> OTUs. In R1, we revise. substrituions/site/myr and s/s/myr are used interchangeably. It would be a good idea to define for the first time and stick to the abbreviated version. We will delete later appeared “substrituions/site/myr”. Some journal ask to offer abbreviations, but now not a case. Table 1 has a header labeled as 'country', but in fact, 'sampling locality' might be a better description of the content. Also, it might be a better to specify what accession numbers the authors are referring to, GenBank? In GenBank/DDJB “country” is requested to use. Also our data with accession numbers are found in GenBank/DDBJ. Table 2 caption must be improved. In R1, we will check English. It is unclear how the authors decided to use HKY model for the BEAST analysis. Default setting. The authors mentioned that the 95\% highest posterior density for confidence intervals of ages are not shown in Figure 1--3 to avoid visual complexity. Is it going to be available in supplementary material? This is important information to verify authors' claims regarding the node ages in the manuscript. Please consider adding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) bars to represent confidence intervals for ages on each node in Figure 2. The figure becomes further busy. We believe they may not add significant meaning. Figure 4 mentions the number of base changes for whole mitochondrial gene, but the two plots are based only on COI and 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. The caption needs improvement. Vertical axis is COI numbers of base changes and 18S rRNA numbers of base changes, respectively in left sided COI and right sided 18S rRNA figures. In results, the authors refer to Figure 3 as COI + 16S rRNA. It seemed like the authors were working on 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. We found four mistakes of 16S rRNA in page 11 including Osozawa et al. (2016), and we collect as 18S rRNA and Osozawa et al. (2017a) in R1. The authors mentioned that the rate has exponentially increased into Holocene based on the incets of Figure 1--3. But no Holocene was labeled anywhere in these figures. Also, the authors stated the curves and rates are similar for the incets in Figure 1,2 and 3, but it is hard to understand how the authors concluded that they are 'similar', which is a very subjective description. The Holocene is the most recent epoch of the Quaternary period, following the boundary at 0.0117 Ma. We acknowledge the difficulty in accurately labeling the time point at 0.0117 Ma in Figures 1 to 3. Compare formula in the same one in Fig. 1 and 2, and the distinct one in Fig. 3. We were hoping your constructive review about increasing rate, factor, and affect. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Phylogenetics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. copyright 30 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Sungsik Kong, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) NOT APPROVED info_outline The main objective of this study is to present a time-calibrated tree of cicada species reconstructed using BEAST v1.X. The trees contain crypic cicada species from Ryukyu islands in addition to the existing data presented in the previous studies. The authors show improved taxonomy of some of the major cicada groups. Moreover the authors suggest an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. While the content of the manuscript is interesting, it requires substantial improvement and is not ready for indexing. The following comments elaborate some places where the improvements can be made. Thank you for your review, and we appreciate your attention to our main insight and new finding regarding the exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. Although we acknowledge that our experience with BEAST v1. X and the calibration method is limited, we recommend that you become a BEAST v1.X user, as it will provide you with the tools and resources to address your queries effectively. Utilizing BEAST v1.X will enable you to delve deeper into the subject matter and gain a better understanding of the findings we presented. In general, the manuscript is not easy to understand. It is understandable that English may not be the authors' first language, however, an academic manuscript must be written clearly. We appreciate your confidence in the writing quality of the present manuscript. Considering that John Wakabayashi is a native English speaker, it is likely that the manuscript is indeed well-written. However, we understand your desire for a thorough review of the English language in the R1 manuscripts. For example, the last sentence of Abstract seems to be not connecting with the previous sentences. “We estimated base substitution rate as a function of age, and the result strongly indicates an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time.” Is connected to next sentence “The consequent increase in cicada biodiversity, including generation of cryptic species in the Ryukyu Islands and surroundings, may have been driven by the generation and spreading of C4 grasses and coeval Quaternary climate change.” The first sentence of Introduction is excessively long. It is crucial to emphasize the specific type of gene used in the phylogenetic analyses, and our current COI and 18S rRNA sequence data may not be sufficient for our study. Addressing these concerns, we reviewed here the significance of utilizing an appropriate and comprehensive set of genes for the recent trend of phylogenetic analyses for cicadas. In figure 1, is not clear what it means by "maximum" COI sequence. “1,534 bp in maximum”, not “maximum COI sequence”. We will revise in R1 manuscript. It is not clear what is the inserted figure. I assume it is the plot on the left side with white background. These are also called as 'inserts' later in the manuscript. How about labeling these as a) and b)? Here, y-axis is not labeled. The inset was made by node data shown in Fig. 2. In R1, we will improve the expression. Y axis is Ma, or you questioned no species name? It is not clear what it means by the intersection for the curve and what it represents biologically. To draw the approximate curve, better to apply the intersection data, and we applied rate median obtained from Tracer. Green or red starts and the values corresponding to it is never explained in the caption. You will find the captions within Fig. 1, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Basically figure 2 is an identical tree as what is presented in figure 1. We acknowledge the feedback provided by Jessica Ware, a reviewer of our dragonfly manuscript, regarding Figure 2 being overly crowded. To address this concern, we have made revisions by dividing the scientific content of Figure 2 into simplified and full version figures, namely Figures 1 and 2, respectively. It is important to note that both figures are identical, as you correctly pointed out. By providing simplified and full versions of the figure, we aim to improve the clarity and readability of the scientific information presented. This division allows readers to quickly grasp the main concepts in the simplified version, while still having access to the more detailed information in the full version if desired. We appreciate the valuable input from Jessica Ware and are grateful for her suggestion to enhance the visual presentation of our manuscript. Thank you for highlighting this issue, and we hope these revisions address the concern effectively. Again, the caption is very difficult to understand. Red and green stars and the values associated with them are never explained. The three values at the node in the tree are never explained. You will find the captions within Fig. 2, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Probably see also main text. Figure 3 has similar problems. More work is needed in presenting the trees. Fig. 3 was presented to compare COI + 18S rRNA tree vs solely COI tree in Figs. 1 and 3. Allow us here too busy figure without simplified figure. Also, the authors mention in the caption of Figure 3 that the rate is a 'little' slower than that of in Figures 1 and 2, but it is what it means by 'a little', which is a subjective description. Rate median 0.0114 in Fig. 3 inset is a little slower than 0.0128 in Figs. 1 and 2, reflecting Fig. 3 was considered slower rated (not sensitive) 18S rRNA data. The authors mention that the tree topology (based on COI) was unaffected by 18S rRNA. In other words, Figures 1, 2, and 3 are the same trees. If this is true, I am not sure presenting three identical trees is a good practice. Moreover, the authors must explore if the congruence occurred because they actually are congruent or simply the signals in 18S rRNA is too small to override the signals in COI. It would be interesting to explore the tree based on 18S rRNA. Note that COI tree is for 352 specimens and tips, and COI + 18S rRNA tree is for 1492 specimens and tips, and not strictly identical and congruent. 18S rRNA tree is “low resolution” and discordant COI tree. Seealso “Why was BEAST2 not used”. typo {Abstract} parapheletic -> paraphyletic. In R1, we revise. typo {Figure 2} OUTs -> OTUs. In R1, we revise. substrituions/site/myr and s/s/myr are used interchangeably. It would be a good idea to define for the first time and stick to the abbreviated version. We will delete later appeared “substrituions/site/myr”. Some journal ask to offer abbreviations, but now not a case. Table 1 has a header labeled as 'country', but in fact, 'sampling locality' might be a better description of the content. Also, it might be a better to specify what accession numbers the authors are referring to, GenBank? In GenBank/DDJB “country” is requested to use. Also our data with accession numbers are found in GenBank/DDBJ. Table 2 caption must be improved. In R1, we will check English. It is unclear how the authors decided to use HKY model for the BEAST analysis. Default setting. The authors mentioned that the 95\% highest posterior density for confidence intervals of ages are not shown in Figure 1--3 to avoid visual complexity. Is it going to be available in supplementary material? This is important information to verify authors' claims regarding the node ages in the manuscript. Please consider adding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) bars to represent confidence intervals for ages on each node in Figure 2. The figure becomes further busy. We believe they may not add significant meaning. Figure 4 mentions the number of base changes for whole mitochondrial gene, but the two plots are based only on COI and 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. The caption needs improvement. Vertical axis is COI numbers of base changes and 18S rRNA numbers of base changes, respectively in left sided COI and right sided 18S rRNA figures. In results, the authors refer to Figure 3 as COI + 16S rRNA. It seemed like the authors were working on 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. We found four mistakes of 16S rRNA in page 11 including Osozawa et al. (2016), and we collect as 18S rRNA and Osozawa et al. (2017a) in R1. The authors mentioned that the rate has exponentially increased into Holocene based on the incets of Figure 1--3. But no Holocene was labeled anywhere in these figures. Also, the authors stated the curves and rates are similar for the incets in Figure 1,2 and 3, but it is hard to understand how the authors concluded that they are 'similar', which is a very subjective description. The Holocene is the most recent epoch of the Quaternary period, following the boundary at 0.0117 Ma. We acknowledge the difficulty in accurately labeling the time point at 0.0117 Ma in Figures 1 to 3. Compare formula in the same one in Fig. 1 and 2, and the distinct one in Fig. 3. We were hoping your constructive review about increasing rate, factor, and affect. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Phylogenetics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Jul 2023 Soichi Osozawa , Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 20 Jul 2023 Author Response copyright 30 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Sungsik Kong, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) NOT APPROVED info_outline The main objective ... Continue reading copyright 30 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Sungsik Kong, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) NOT APPROVED info_outline The main objective of this study is to present a time-calibrated tree of cicada species reconstructed using BEAST v1.X. The trees contain crypic cicada species from Ryukyu islands in addition to the existing data presented in the previous studies. The authors show improved taxonomy of some of the major cicada groups. Moreover the authors suggest an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. While the content of the manuscript is interesting, it requires substantial improvement and is not ready for indexing. The following comments elaborate some places where the improvements can be made. Thank you for your review, and we appreciate your attention to our main insight and new finding regarding the exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. Although we acknowledge that our experience with BEAST v1. X and the calibration method is limited, we recommend that you become a BEAST v1.X user, as it will provide you with the tools and resources to address your queries effectively. Utilizing BEAST v1.X will enable you to delve deeper into the subject matter and gain a better understanding of the findings we presented. In general, the manuscript is not easy to understand. It is understandable that English may not be the authors' first language, however, an academic manuscript must be written clearly. We appreciate your confidence in the writing quality of the present manuscript. Considering that John Wakabayashi is a native English speaker, it is likely that the manuscript is indeed well-written. However, we understand your desire for a thorough review of the English language in the R1 manuscripts. For example, the last sentence of Abstract seems to be not connecting with the previous sentences. “We estimated base substitution rate as a function of age, and the result strongly indicates an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time.” Is connected to next sentence “The consequent increase in cicada biodiversity, including generation of cryptic species in the Ryukyu Islands and surroundings, may have been driven by the generation and spreading of C4 grasses and coeval Quaternary climate change.” The first sentence of Introduction is excessively long. It is crucial to emphasize the specific type of gene used in the phylogenetic analyses, and our current COI and 18S rRNA sequence data may not be sufficient for our study. Addressing these concerns, we reviewed here the significance of utilizing an appropriate and comprehensive set of genes for the recent trend of phylogenetic analyses for cicadas. In figure 1, is not clear what it means by "maximum" COI sequence. “1,534 bp in maximum”, not “maximum COI sequence”. We will revise in R1 manuscript. It is not clear what is the inserted figure. I assume it is the plot on the left side with white background. These are also called as 'inserts' later in the manuscript. How about labeling these as a) and b)? Here, y-axis is not labeled. The inset was made by node data shown in Fig. 2. In R1, we will improve the expression. Y axis is Ma, or you questioned no species name? It is not clear what it means by the intersection for the curve and what it represents biologically. To draw the approximate curve, better to apply the intersection data, and we applied rate median obtained from Tracer. Green or red starts and the values corresponding to it is never explained in the caption. You will find the captions within Fig. 1, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Basically figure 2 is an identical tree as what is presented in figure 1. We acknowledge the feedback provided by Jessica Ware, a reviewer of our dragonfly manuscript, regarding Figure 2 being overly crowded. To address this concern, we have made revisions by dividing the scientific content of Figure 2 into simplified and full version figures, namely Figures 1 and 2, respectively. It is important to note that both figures are identical, as you correctly pointed out. By providing simplified and full versions of the figure, we aim to improve the clarity and readability of the scientific information presented. This division allows readers to quickly grasp the main concepts in the simplified version, while still having access to the more detailed information in the full version if desired. We appreciate the valuable input from Jessica Ware and are grateful for her suggestion to enhance the visual presentation of our manuscript. Thank you for highlighting this issue, and we hope these revisions address the concern effectively. Again, the caption is very difficult to understand. Red and green stars and the values associated with them are never explained. The three values at the node in the tree are never explained. You will find the captions within Fig. 2, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Probably see also main text. Figure 3 has similar problems. More work is needed in presenting the trees. Fig. 3 was presented to compare COI + 18S rRNA tree vs solely COI tree in Figs. 1 and 3. Allow us here too busy figure without simplified figure. Also, the authors mention in the caption of Figure 3 that the rate is a 'little' slower than that of in Figures 1 and 2, but it is what it means by 'a little', which is a subjective description. Rate median 0.0114 in Fig. 3 inset is a little slower than 0.0128 in Figs. 1 and 2, reflecting Fig. 3 was considered slower rated (not sensitive) 18S rRNA data. The authors mention that the tree topology (based on COI) was unaffected by 18S rRNA. In other words, Figures 1, 2, and 3 are the same trees. If this is true, I am not sure presenting three identical trees is a good practice. Moreover, the authors must explore if the congruence occurred because they actually are congruent or simply the signals in 18S rRNA is too small to override the signals in COI. It would be interesting to explore the tree based on 18S rRNA. Note that COI tree is for 352 specimens and tips, and COI + 18S rRNA tree is for 1492 specimens and tips, and not strictly identical and congruent. 18S rRNA tree is “low resolution” and discordant COI tree. Seealso “Why was BEAST2 not used”. typo {Abstract} parapheletic -> paraphyletic. In R1, we revise. typo {Figure 2} OUTs -> OTUs. In R1, we revise. substrituions/site/myr and s/s/myr are used interchangeably. It would be a good idea to define for the first time and stick to the abbreviated version. We will delete later appeared “substrituions/site/myr”. Some journal ask to offer abbreviations, but now not a case. Table 1 has a header labeled as 'country', but in fact, 'sampling locality' might be a better description of the content. Also, it might be a better to specify what accession numbers the authors are referring to, GenBank? In GenBank/DDJB “country” is requested to use. Also our data with accession numbers are found in GenBank/DDBJ. Table 2 caption must be improved. In R1, we will check English. It is unclear how the authors decided to use HKY model for the BEAST analysis. Default setting. The authors mentioned that the 95\% highest posterior density for confidence intervals of ages are not shown in Figure 1--3 to avoid visual complexity. Is it going to be available in supplementary material? This is important information to verify authors' claims regarding the node ages in the manuscript. Please consider adding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) bars to represent confidence intervals for ages on each node in Figure 2. The figure becomes further busy. We believe they may not add significant meaning. Figure 4 mentions the number of base changes for whole mitochondrial gene, but the two plots are based only on COI and 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. The caption needs improvement. Vertical axis is COI numbers of base changes and 18S rRNA numbers of base changes, respectively in left sided COI and right sided 18S rRNA figures. In results, the authors refer to Figure 3 as COI + 16S rRNA. It seemed like the authors were working on 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. We found four mistakes of 16S rRNA in page 11 including Osozawa et al. (2016), and we collect as 18S rRNA and Osozawa et al. (2017a) in R1. The authors mentioned that the rate has exponentially increased into Holocene based on the incets of Figure 1--3. But no Holocene was labeled anywhere in these figures. Also, the authors stated the curves and rates are similar for the incets in Figure 1,2 and 3, but it is hard to understand how the authors concluded that they are 'similar', which is a very subjective description. The Holocene is the most recent epoch of the Quaternary period, following the boundary at 0.0117 Ma. We acknowledge the difficulty in accurately labeling the time point at 0.0117 Ma in Figures 1 to 3. Compare formula in the same one in Fig. 1 and 2, and the distinct one in Fig. 3. We were hoping your constructive review about increasing rate, factor, and affect. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Phylogenetics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. copyright 30 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Sungsik Kong, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) NOT APPROVED info_outline The main objective of this study is to present a time-calibrated tree of cicada species reconstructed using BEAST v1.X. The trees contain crypic cicada species from Ryukyu islands in addition to the existing data presented in the previous studies. The authors show improved taxonomy of some of the major cicada groups. Moreover the authors suggest an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. While the content of the manuscript is interesting, it requires substantial improvement and is not ready for indexing. The following comments elaborate some places where the improvements can be made. Thank you for your review, and we appreciate your attention to our main insight and new finding regarding the exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. Although we acknowledge that our experience with BEAST v1. X and the calibration method is limited, we recommend that you become a BEAST v1.X user, as it will provide you with the tools and resources to address your queries effectively. Utilizing BEAST v1.X will enable you to delve deeper into the subject matter and gain a better understanding of the findings we presented. In general, the manuscript is not easy to understand. It is understandable that English may not be the authors' first language, however, an academic manuscript must be written clearly. We appreciate your confidence in the writing quality of the present manuscript. Considering that John Wakabayashi is a native English speaker, it is likely that the manuscript is indeed well-written. However, we understand your desire for a thorough review of the English language in the R1 manuscripts. For example, the last sentence of Abstract seems to be not connecting with the previous sentences. “We estimated base substitution rate as a function of age, and the result strongly indicates an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time.” Is connected to next sentence “The consequent increase in cicada biodiversity, including generation of cryptic species in the Ryukyu Islands and surroundings, may have been driven by the generation and spreading of C4 grasses and coeval Quaternary climate change.” The first sentence of Introduction is excessively long. It is crucial to emphasize the specific type of gene used in the phylogenetic analyses, and our current COI and 18S rRNA sequence data may not be sufficient for our study. Addressing these concerns, we reviewed here the significance of utilizing an appropriate and comprehensive set of genes for the recent trend of phylogenetic analyses for cicadas. In figure 1, is not clear what it means by "maximum" COI sequence. “1,534 bp in maximum”, not “maximum COI sequence”. We will revise in R1 manuscript. It is not clear what is the inserted figure. I assume it is the plot on the left side with white background. These are also called as 'inserts' later in the manuscript. How about labeling these as a) and b)? Here, y-axis is not labeled. The inset was made by node data shown in Fig. 2. In R1, we will improve the expression. Y axis is Ma, or you questioned no species name? It is not clear what it means by the intersection for the curve and what it represents biologically. To draw the approximate curve, better to apply the intersection data, and we applied rate median obtained from Tracer. Green or red starts and the values corresponding to it is never explained in the caption. You will find the captions within Fig. 1, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Basically figure 2 is an identical tree as what is presented in figure 1. We acknowledge the feedback provided by Jessica Ware, a reviewer of our dragonfly manuscript, regarding Figure 2 being overly crowded. To address this concern, we have made revisions by dividing the scientific content of Figure 2 into simplified and full version figures, namely Figures 1 and 2, respectively. It is important to note that both figures are identical, as you correctly pointed out. By providing simplified and full versions of the figure, we aim to improve the clarity and readability of the scientific information presented. This division allows readers to quickly grasp the main concepts in the simplified version, while still having access to the more detailed information in the full version if desired. We appreciate the valuable input from Jessica Ware and are grateful for her suggestion to enhance the visual presentation of our manuscript. Thank you for highlighting this issue, and we hope these revisions address the concern effectively. Again, the caption is very difficult to understand. Red and green stars and the values associated with them are never explained. The three values at the node in the tree are never explained. You will find the captions within Fig. 2, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Probably see also main text. Figure 3 has similar problems. More work is needed in presenting the trees. Fig. 3 was presented to compare COI + 18S rRNA tree vs solely COI tree in Figs. 1 and 3. Allow us here too busy figure without simplified figure. Also, the authors mention in the caption of Figure 3 that the rate is a 'little' slower than that of in Figures 1 and 2, but it is what it means by 'a little', which is a subjective description. Rate median 0.0114 in Fig. 3 inset is a little slower than 0.0128 in Figs. 1 and 2, reflecting Fig. 3 was considered slower rated (not sensitive) 18S rRNA data. The authors mention that the tree topology (based on COI) was unaffected by 18S rRNA. In other words, Figures 1, 2, and 3 are the same trees. If this is true, I am not sure presenting three identical trees is a good practice. Moreover, the authors must explore if the congruence occurred because they actually are congruent or simply the signals in 18S rRNA is too small to override the signals in COI. It would be interesting to explore the tree based on 18S rRNA. Note that COI tree is for 352 specimens and tips, and COI + 18S rRNA tree is for 1492 specimens and tips, and not strictly identical and congruent. 18S rRNA tree is “low resolution” and discordant COI tree. Seealso “Why was BEAST2 not used”. typo {Abstract} parapheletic -> paraphyletic. In R1, we revise. typo {Figure 2} OUTs -> OTUs. In R1, we revise. substrituions/site/myr and s/s/myr are used interchangeably. It would be a good idea to define for the first time and stick to the abbreviated version. We will delete later appeared “substrituions/site/myr”. Some journal ask to offer abbreviations, but now not a case. Table 1 has a header labeled as 'country', but in fact, 'sampling locality' might be a better description of the content. Also, it might be a better to specify what accession numbers the authors are referring to, GenBank? In GenBank/DDJB “country” is requested to use. Also our data with accession numbers are found in GenBank/DDBJ. Table 2 caption must be improved. In R1, we will check English. It is unclear how the authors decided to use HKY model for the BEAST analysis. Default setting. The authors mentioned that the 95\% highest posterior density for confidence intervals of ages are not shown in Figure 1--3 to avoid visual complexity. Is it going to be available in supplementary material? This is important information to verify authors' claims regarding the node ages in the manuscript. Please consider adding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) bars to represent confidence intervals for ages on each node in Figure 2. The figure becomes further busy. We believe they may not add significant meaning. Figure 4 mentions the number of base changes for whole mitochondrial gene, but the two plots are based only on COI and 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. The caption needs improvement. Vertical axis is COI numbers of base changes and 18S rRNA numbers of base changes, respectively in left sided COI and right sided 18S rRNA figures. In results, the authors refer to Figure 3 as COI + 16S rRNA. It seemed like the authors were working on 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. We found four mistakes of 16S rRNA in page 11 including Osozawa et al. (2016), and we collect as 18S rRNA and Osozawa et al. (2017a) in R1. The authors mentioned that the rate has exponentially increased into Holocene based on the incets of Figure 1--3. But no Holocene was labeled anywhere in these figures. Also, the authors stated the curves and rates are similar for the incets in Figure 1,2 and 3, but it is hard to understand how the authors concluded that they are 'similar', which is a very subjective description. The Holocene is the most recent epoch of the Quaternary period, following the boundary at 0.0117 Ma. We acknowledge the difficulty in accurately labeling the time point at 0.0117 Ma in Figures 1 to 3. Compare formula in the same one in Fig. 1 and 2, and the distinct one in Fig. 3. We were hoping your constructive review about increasing rate, factor, and affect. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Phylogenetics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 5 VERSION 5 PUBLISHED 14 Mar 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 5 Version 5 (revision) 14 Feb 25 read Version 4 (revision) 09 Oct 24 read read Version 3 (revision) 23 Apr 24 read Version 2 (revision) 10 Aug 23 read Version 1 14 Mar 22 read read Sungsik Kong , University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA David A Duchêne , University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Fan Song , China Agricultural University, Beijing, China Jacek Szwedo , University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland Christopher H Dietrich , University of Illinois Champaign, Champaign, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dietrich C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Mar 2025 | for Version 5 Christopher H Dietrich , University of Illinois Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dietrich C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The new version of the manuscript addresses my prior concerns so I now think it is acceptable in its present form. -CD Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Dietrich CH. Peer Review Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177914.r366525) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v5#referee-response-366525 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dietrich C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 29 Jan 2025 | for Version 4 Christopher H Dietrich , University of Illinois Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dietrich C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This interesting paper provides a detailed timetree for cicadas, combining several new minimum age calibrations for recent speciation events in Asia to some calibrations for some older divergences published previously. The methods are described in detail and the conclusions seem justified. Of particular interest is the exponential increase in nucleotide substitution rates for the gene regions used to estimate the timetree. The main remaining problem with the manuscript is that it needs considerable editing to improve the English and clarify some points that are not currently clear as written, e.g., in the abstract it is stated "The Cicadinae clade consists of specific tribes with paraphyletic relationship"; does this mean that the tribes are each paraphyletic, some tribes gave rise to others, or something else? Earlier in the abstract the statement "Tettigarctidae had a cicada basal lineage as old as 200.63 Ma"; the meaning is again unclear but presumably this could be stated more precisely as "Tettigarctidae are sister to the remaining cicadas..." Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Systematics, taxonomy, paleontology and phylogenomics of Auchenorrhyncha. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Dietrich CH. Peer Review Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170027.r354651) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v4#referee-response-354651 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Szwedo J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 Nov 2024 | for Version 4 Jacek Szwedo , University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland 0 Views copyright © 2024 Szwedo J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The aims of research and methods are adequate. The results results are presented accurately and with justified conclusions. These are well supported by the provided data, selected calibration points and results, and provided tables and figures. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise fossils, phylogeny, palaeoecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Szwedo J. Peer Review Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170027.r330173) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v4#referee-response-330173 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Szwedo J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 25 Jul 2024 | for Version 3 Jacek Szwedo , University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland 0 Views copyright © 2024 Szwedo J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions There are several new data and interpretations concerning the classification and fossil record of cicadas and Hemiptera s whole - see attached file. Main issue is the selection and estimation of age taken for taxa used for calibration, these are to be revised and updated according to current data, classification proposals or if other than the oldest available taxa selected the reasons should be clearly explained. In my opinion the stem and crown groups should be clearly stated and pointed which are analysed and then discussed. The text is not easy to read, especially for those not familiar with numerous existing phylogenetic, classifications and relationships hypotheses. The better calibration points selection, and use of new data (e.g. Bucher et al. 2023, Jiang et al. 2024) can change the received topologies. There are several taxonomic decisions which are not clearly explained or references, e.g. transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. Interpretation and discussion of data and results must be more detailed - the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. This reservation must be taken for higher taxa especially. A comparison with evolutionary traits observed in Delphacidae planthoppers (Urban et al 2010 [Ref-11]) closely related to Poaceae can enrich the discussion and maybe similar phaenomena can be found and discussed. Please refer to the following attachment for my additional comments on your article submission: https://f1000research.s3.amazonaws.com/linked/665193.Jaeck-Reviewer_attachment.pdf Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Jiang H, Szwedo J, Labandeira CC, Chen J, et al.: Mesozoic evolution of cicadas and their origins of vocalization and root feeding. Nat Commun . 2024; 15 (1): 376 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Bucher M, Condamine FL, Luo Y, Wang M, et al.: Phylogeny and diversification of planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha) based on a comprehensive molecular dataset and large taxon sampling. Mol Phylogenet Evol . 2023; 186 : 107862 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. BUCHER M, GIGNOUX G, SZWEDO J, BOURGOIN T: Time-traveling through fossil planthopper tegmina in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras (Insecta: Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha). Palaeoentomology . 2024; 7 (1): 1-67 Publisher Full Text 4. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a New Classification of Planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 1. What Do Fulgoridiidae Really Cover?. Annales Zoologici . 2022; 72 (4). Publisher Full Text 5. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a new classification of planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 2. Higher taxa, their names and their composition. Zootaxa . 2023; 5297 (4): 562-568 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Lambkin KJ: Revision of the Hylicellidae of the Late Triassic of Queensland (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Hylicelloidea). Zootaxa . 2020; 4790 (3): zootaxa.4790.3.7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Montagna M., Strada L., Dioli P. & Tintori A: The Middle Triassic Lagerstätte of Monte San Giorgio reveals the oldest lace bugs (Hemiptera: Tingidae): Archetingis ladinica gen n. sp n. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia . 2018. Reference Source 8. Shcherbakov D: The earliest true bugs and aphids from the Middle Triassic of France (Hemiptera). rej . 2011; 19 (1): 179-182 Publisher Full Text 9. Wang YH, Wu HY, Rédei D, Xie Q, et al.: When did the ancestor of true bugs become stinky? Disentangling the phylogenomics of Hemiptera-Heteroptera. Cladistics . 2019; 35 (1): 42-66 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Szwedo J: The unity, diversity and conformity of bugs (Hemiptera) through time. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh . 2016; 107 (2-3): 109-128 Publisher Full Text 11. URBAN J, BARTLETT C, CRYAN J: Evolution of Delphacidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea): combined-evidence phylogenetics reveals importance of grass host shifts. Systematic Entomology . 2010; 35 (4): 678-691 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise fossils, phylogeny, palaeoecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 09 Oct 2024 Soichi Osozawa, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Reviewer Report 2 Views copyright 25 Jul 2024 | for Version 3 Jacek Szwedo, State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China; University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) Approved With Reservations There are several new data and interpretations concerning the classification and fossil record of cicadas and Hemiptera s whole - see attached file. ---NOT readable. Main issue is the selection and estimation of age taken for taxa used for calibration, these are to be revised and updated according to current data, classification proposals or if other than the oldest available taxa selected the reasons should be clearly explained. In my opinion the stem and crown groups should be clearly stated and pointed which are analysed and then discussed. The text is not easy to read, especially for those not familiar with numerous existing phylogenetic, classifications and relationships hypotheses. The better calibration points selection, and use of new data (e.g. Bucher et al. 2023, Jiang et al. 2024) can change the received topologies. There are several taxonomic decisions which are not clearly explained or references, e.g. transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. Interpretation and discussion of data and results must be more detailed - the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. This reservation must be taken for higher taxa especially. A comparison with evolutionary traits observed in Delphacidae planthoppers (Urban et al 2010 [Ref-11]) closely related to Poaceae can enrich the discussion and maybe similar phaenomena can be found and discussed. Thank you for review. Bucher et al. (2023) provided the age of Cicadoidea fossils in Burmage amber as 98.79 Ma. I have used this age as calibration point C, representing the stem age of Derotettiginae (i.e., the stem of Cicadoidea). Bucher et al. (2023) and other studies provide estimated ages based on node dating, which are not suitable for the present fossil age calibration. Stem and crown ages should be determined using fossil evidence. Jiang et al. (2024) and other recommended articles may include such indirect ages, but I used geologically robust fossil ages, including those from Burmese amber, for calibration. Transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae. --- The transfer of Burmacicada protera from Cicadinae to Derotettiginae was originally noted as Derotettiginae in Table 2. the Clypeata is the only extant clade of extremely diversified Cicadomorpha, with most of the lineages gone extinct, this leads to misunderstandings of relationships based exclusively on molecular data, as these are available only for crown, extant, groups. --- I have already included Cercopidae (Cicadomorpha, which comprises extant species other than those in Cicadoidea). “A3: Fossil Ledridae ( Zhang 1997) and fossil Cercopidae ( Hong 1982) were recovered from the Jehol Biota of northern China. The Jehol Biota horizon has been dated by the Ar-Ar method on associated silicic tuff at 130.7 ± 1.4 Ma ( He et al. 2006).” I cited Urban et al (2010) at the end of discussion. “The rapid diversification of Delphacini is linked to shifts in host plants, particularly from C3 to C4 grasses within the Poaceae family (Urban et al., 2010).” Please refer to the following attachment for my additional comments on your article submission: https://f1000research.s3.amazonaws.com/linked/665193.Jaeck-Reviewer_attachment.pdf Note that the data in the attachment may be lost or unreadable. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Jiang H, Szwedo J, Labandeira CC, Chen J, et al.: Mesozoic evolution of cicadas and their origins of vocalization and root feeding.Nat Commun. 2024; 15 (1): 376 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Bucher M, Condamine FL, Luo Y, Wang M, et al.: Phylogeny and diversification of planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha) based on a comprehensive molecular dataset and large taxon sampling.Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2023; 186: 107862 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. BUCHER M, GIGNOUX G, SZWEDO J, BOURGOIN T: Time-traveling through fossil planthopper tegmina in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras (Insecta: Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha). Palaeoentomology. 2024; 7 (1): 1-67 Publisher Full Text 4. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a New Classification of Planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 1. What Do Fulgoridiidae Really Cover?. Annales Zoologici. 2022; 72 (4). Publisher Full Text 5. Bourgoin T, Szwedo J: Toward a new classification of planthoppers Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha: 2. Higher taxa, their names and their composition.Zootaxa. 2023; 5297 (4): 562-568 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Lambkin KJ: Revision of the Hylicellidae of the Late Triassic of Queensland (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Hylicelloidea).Zootaxa. 2020; 4790 (3): zootaxa.4790.3.7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Montagna M., Strada L., Dioli P. & Tintori A: The Middle Triassic Lagerstätte of Monte San Giorgio reveals the oldest lace bugs (Hemiptera: Tingidae): Archetingis ladinica gen n. sp n.Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 2018. Reference Source 8. Shcherbakov D: The earliest true bugs and aphids from the Middle Triassic of France (Hemiptera). rej. 2011; 19 (1): 179-182 Publisher Full Text 9. Wang YH, Wu HY, Rédei D, Xie Q, et al.: When did the ancestor of true bugs become stinky? Disentangling the phylogenomics of Hemiptera-Heteroptera.Cladistics. 2019; 35 (1): 42-66 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Szwedo J: The unity, diversity and conformity of bugs (Hemiptera) through time. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 2016; 107 (2-3): 109-128 Publisher Full Text 11. URBAN J, BARTLETT C, CRYAN J: Evolution of Delphacidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea): combined-evidence phylogenetics reveals importance of grass host shifts. Systematic Entomology. 2010; 35 (4): 678-691 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise fossils, phylogeny, palaeoecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Szwedo J. Peer Review Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165295.r292455) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v3#referee-response-292455 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Song F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 18 Apr 2024 | for Version 2 Fan Song , China Agricultural University, Beijing, China 0 Views copyright © 2024 Song F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study primarily focused on estimating the divergence times of Cicadoidea. Compared to previous studies, the strength of this research lies in its inclusion of local data and data from enigmatic cicadas of the Ryukyu Islands. Exploring cicada biodiversity in the Ryukyu Islands and surrounding areas, as well as their historical evolution, is quite intriguing. A highlight of the paper is the addition of 92 new data points. Additionally, the discussion includes extensive content on cicada biodiversity and evolutionary history, which is very impressive. However, this manuscript still has some issues, such as poor readability of the figures. I think some of the reasonable suggestions from the previous reviewers haven't been addressed by the authors. Such as "A typo in Abstract: parapheletic -> paraphyletic.", "It would be better to replace "country" with "sampling locality" in the title of Table 1". I haven't seen evidence of them being addressed in the revisions. In addition to the above, I suggest the public sharing and presentation of intermediate data, such as alignment matrices, input files and output tree for BEAST. I appreciate and agree with the suggestion to provide a detailed description of the software analysis procedures. The materials and methods section in this manuscript reads more like a step-by-step tutorial rather than a description typically found in research articles. If a thorough description is desired, perhaps it would be more suitable to include it in the supplementary materials. The following comments elaborate some places where the improvements can be made. There's confusion in the description. The DNA sequences used are COI and 18S rRNA. However, in both the ‘Materials and Methods’ and ‘Results sections’, the description of Figure 3 mentions COI and 16S rRNA as well as COI and 18S rRNA simultaneously. The captions for Figures 1 and 3 lack explanations for the different coloured asterisks, especially the red pentagon and the meaning of the small branches on the right side of the images. In Figures 1­–3, the scatter plot of base substitution rate needs to specify the data used for the X-axis and Y-axis. In the Materials and Methods, I believe it's important to explain the conceptual rationale behind the design of base substitution rate. The estimated divergence time ranges mentioned in the manuscript should ideally maintain the same number of decimal places for consistency. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Insect Phylogeny; Genomics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Song F. Peer Review Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154265.r260431) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v2#referee-response-260431 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Duchêne D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 David A Duchêne , Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark 0 Views copyright © 2023 Duchêne D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions In this study, Osozawa and Wakabayashi examine the timing of the splits within the Cicadas using a Bayesian framework for phylogenetic analysis. The motivation for the study and data are well presented. However, the methods have large amounts of superfluous information that makes them appear confusing. Overall, the manuscript is going in a good direction, but requires substantial streamlining. My main comment is on the description of BEAST. For the purposes of this study, BEAST v1 and 2 should make very little difference. In fact, it would be surprising to find any difference in results whatsoever, unless the analyses failed to converge to stationarity. The differences highlighted by the authors, such as in the BEAUti interface, are not meaningful to the analyses. Therefore, the authors should consider removing any comparison between the software, and only mention BEAST once and very briefly in the methods. Far more important is the models chosen for analysis using BEAST. At the moment these details seem buried in between the discussion about the software versions. I suggest the authors replace any sections about the BEAST versions, and exclude BEAST from section headings, leaving simply a section on "Molecular dating". Importantly, the authors do not mention how they assessed convergence of the MCMC chain to stationarity (e.g., effective sample sizes, multiple runs, and visual assessment, or similar). There is substantial redundancy in the figures, which is confusing to the untrained eye. The authors should consider using a single main tree figure with the primary results and icons to indicate which analyses were congruent. This would make the study far more succinct and intuitive. The excessive emphasis on the software versions obscures the true emphasis of the study: Cicada evolution. The authors should consider re-framing the Abstract and Introduction to focus on the previous biological findings on the topic. The methodological considerations are secondary and should be left to the methods. Otherwise, the study appears to primarily focus on a debate about methods, which is not the case. The emphasis should be on the novel molecular and fossil data, which are the true major source of novel insights in the study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Phylogenetic modelling, molecular evolution, molecular dating. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 24 Aug 2023 Soichi Osozawa, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan copyright 02 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 David A Duchêne Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark In this study, Osozawa and Wakabayashi examine the timing of the splits within the Cicadas using a Bayesian framework for phylogenetic analysis. The motivation for the study and data are well presented. However, the methods have large amounts of superfluous information that makes them appear confusing. Overall, the manuscript is going in a good direction, but requires substantial streamlining. Thank you for your review and approval. I plan to compare MCMCTree to BEAST v1 and eagerly await the MCMCTree GUI for Mac. If you are involved in the development of MCMCTree, I appreciate your contributions to the field. My main comment is on the description of BEAST. For the purposes of this study, BEAST v1 and 2 should make very little difference. In fact, it would be surprising to find any difference in results whatsoever, unless the analyses failed to converge to stationarity. The differences highlighted by the authors, such as in the BEAUti interface, are not meaningful to the analyses. Therefore, the authors should consider removing any comparison between the software, and only mention BEAST once and very briefly in the methods. Regarding the comparison to BEAST v2, I understand that it has undergone significant modifications and is distinct from v1, even though they share some developers. If you prefer, you may choose to use BEAST v1 for this study. Far more important is the models chosen for analysis using BEAST. At the moment these details seem buried in between the discussion about the software versions. I suggest the authors replace any sections about the BEAST versions, and exclude BEAST from section headings, leaving simply a section on "Molecular dating". Importantly, the authors do not mention how they assessed convergence of the MCMC chain to stationarity (e.g., effective sample sizes, multiple runs, and visual assessment, or similar). Title "Molecular dating" may be a suggestion to avoid negative review for us, but I would like to describe details. It is important to emphasize that a larger sample size and genome size, along with an increased MCMC chain, is unrelated to dating and calibrating the tree. The MCMC chain is retained at its default settings. There is substantial redundancy in the figures, which is confusing to the untrained eye. The authors should consider using a single main tree figure with the primary results and icons to indicate which analyses were congruent. This would make the study far more succinct and intuitive. I have simplified Fig. 1 to the best of my ability. The node data, including base substitution rates, may be visualized in FigTree, created also by MCMCTree. The excessive emphasis on the software versions obscures the true emphasis of the study: Cicada evolution. The authors should consider re-framing the Abstract and Introduction to focus on the previous biological findings on the topic. The methodological considerations are secondary and should be left to the methods. Otherwise, the study appears to primarily focus on a debate about methods, which is not the case. The emphasis should be on the novel molecular and fossil data, which are the true major source of novel insights in the study. I am emphasizing the increase in base substitution rate towards the present. To achieve this, the fossil dating process in BEAST v1 is thoroughly described. However, it is important to note that dating by MCMCTree and BEAST v2 does not align with our results, possibly due to the impact of maximum age assumptions. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interest. reply Respond Report a concern Duchêne DA. Peer Review Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.80022.r184588) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v1#referee-response-184588 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Kong S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Sungsik Kong , University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA 0 Views copyright © 2023 Kong S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The main objective of this study is to present a time-calibrated tree of cicada species reconstructed using BEAST v1.X. The trees contain crypic cicada species from Ryukyu islands in addition to the existing data presented in the previous studies. The authors show improved taxonomy of some of the major cicada groups. Moreover the authors suggest an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. While the content of the manuscript is interesting, it requires substantial improvement and is not ready for indexing. The following comments elaborate some places where the improvements can be made. In general, the manuscript is not easy to understand. It is understandable that English may not be the authors' first language, however, an academic manuscript must be written clearly. For example, the last sentence of Abstract seems to be not connecting with the previous sentences. The first sentence of Introduction is excessively long. In figure 1, is is not clear what it means by "maximum" COI sequence. It is not clear what is the inserted figure. I assume it is the plot on the left side with white background. These are also called as 'incets' later in the manuscript. How about labeling these as a) and b)? Here, y-axis is not labeled. It is not clear what it means by the intersection for the curve and what it represents biologically. Green or red starts and the values corresponding to it is never explained in the caption. Basically figure 2 is an identical tree as what is presented in figure 1. Again, the caption is very difficult to understand. Red and green stars and the values associated with them are never explained. The three values at the node in the tree are never explained. Figure 3 has similar problems. More work is needed in presenting the trees. Also, the authors mention in the caption of Figure 3 that the rate is a 'little' slower than that of in Figures 1 and 2, but it is what it means by 'a little', which is a subjective description. The authors mention that the tree topology (based on COI) was unaffected by 18S rRNA. In other words, Figures 1, 2, and 3 are the same trees. If this is true, I am not sure presenting three identical trees is a good practice. Moreover, the authors must explore if the congruence occurred because they actually are congruent or simply the signals in 18S rRNA is too small to override the signals in COI. It would be interesting to explore the tree based on 18S rRNA. typo {Abstract} parapheletic -> paraphyletic. typo {Figure 2} OUTs -> OTUs. substrituions/site/myr and s/s/myr are used interchangeably. It would be a good idea to define for the first time and stick to the abbreviated version. Table 1 has a header labeled as 'country', but in fact, 'sampling locality' might be a better description of the content. Also, it might be a better to specify what accession numbers the authors are referring to, GenBank? Table 2 caption must be improved. It is unclear how the authors decided to use HKY model for the BEAST analysis. The authors mentioned that the 95\% highest posterior density for confidence intervals of ages are not shown in Figure 1--3 to avoid visual complexity. Is it going to be available in supplementary material? This is important information to verify authors' claims regarding the node ages in the manuscript. Figure 4 mentions the number of base changes for whole mitochondrial gene, but the two plots are based only on COI and 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. The caption needs improvement. In results, the authors refer to Figure 3 as COI + 16S rRNA. It seemed like the authors were working on 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. The authors mentioned that the rate has exponentially increased into Holocene based on the incets of Figure 1--3. But no Holocene was labeled anywhere in these figures. Also, the authors stated the curves and rates are similar for the incets in Figure 1,2 and 3, but it is hard to understand how the authors concluded that they are 'similar', which is a very subjective description. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Phylogenetics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Jul 2023 Soichi Osozawa, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan copyright 30 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Sungsik Kong, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses(0) NOT APPROVED info_outline The main objective of this study is to present a time-calibrated tree of cicada species reconstructed using BEAST v1.X. The trees contain crypic cicada species from Ryukyu islands in addition to the existing data presented in the previous studies. The authors show improved taxonomy of some of the major cicada groups. Moreover the authors suggest an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. While the content of the manuscript is interesting, it requires substantial improvement and is not ready for indexing. The following comments elaborate some places where the improvements can be made. Thank you for your review, and we appreciate your attention to our main insight and new finding regarding the exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time. Although we acknowledge that our experience with BEAST v1. X and the calibration method is limited, we recommend that you become a BEAST v1.X user, as it will provide you with the tools and resources to address your queries effectively. Utilizing BEAST v1.X will enable you to delve deeper into the subject matter and gain a better understanding of the findings we presented. In general, the manuscript is not easy to understand. It is understandable that English may not be the authors' first language, however, an academic manuscript must be written clearly. We appreciate your confidence in the writing quality of the present manuscript. Considering that John Wakabayashi is a native English speaker, it is likely that the manuscript is indeed well-written. However, we understand your desire for a thorough review of the English language in the R1 manuscripts. For example, the last sentence of Abstract seems to be not connecting with the previous sentences. “We estimated base substitution rate as a function of age, and the result strongly indicates an exponential increase of base substitution rate in recent geologic time.” Is connected to next sentence “The consequent increase in cicada biodiversity, including generation of cryptic species in the Ryukyu Islands and surroundings, may have been driven by the generation and spreading of C4 grasses and coeval Quaternary climate change.” The first sentence of Introduction is excessively long. It is crucial to emphasize the specific type of gene used in the phylogenetic analyses, and our current COI and 18S rRNA sequence data may not be sufficient for our study. Addressing these concerns, we reviewed here the significance of utilizing an appropriate and comprehensive set of genes for the recent trend of phylogenetic analyses for cicadas. In figure 1, is not clear what it means by "maximum" COI sequence. “1,534 bp in maximum”, not “maximum COI sequence”. We will revise in R1 manuscript. It is not clear what is the inserted figure. I assume it is the plot on the left side with white background. These are also called as 'inserts' later in the manuscript. How about labeling these as a) and b)? Here, y-axis is not labeled. The inset was made by node data shown in Fig. 2. In R1, we will improve the expression. Y axis is Ma, or you questioned no species name? It is not clear what it means by the intersection for the curve and what it represents biologically. To draw the approximate curve, better to apply the intersection data, and we applied rate median obtained from Tracer. Green or red starts and the values corresponding to it is never explained in the caption. You will find the captions within Fig. 1, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Basically figure 2 is an identical tree as what is presented in figure 1. We acknowledge the feedback provided by Jessica Ware, a reviewer of our dragonfly manuscript, regarding Figure 2 being overly crowded. To address this concern, we have made revisions by dividing the scientific content of Figure 2 into simplified and full version figures, namely Figures 1 and 2, respectively. It is important to note that both figures are identical, as you correctly pointed out. By providing simplified and full versions of the figure, we aim to improve the clarity and readability of the scientific information presented. This division allows readers to quickly grasp the main concepts in the simplified version, while still having access to the more detailed information in the full version if desired. We appreciate the valuable input from Jessica Ware and are grateful for her suggestion to enhance the visual presentation of our manuscript. Thank you for highlighting this issue, and we hope these revisions address the concern effectively. Again, the caption is very difficult to understand. Red and green stars and the values associated with them are never explained. The three values at the node in the tree are never explained. You will find the captions within Fig. 2, but we will enlarge the caption in R1. Probably see also main text. Figure 3 has similar problems. More work is needed in presenting the trees. Fig. 3 was presented to compare COI + 18S rRNA tree vs solely COI tree in Figs. 1 and 3. Allow us here too busy figure without simplified figure. Also, the authors mention in the caption of Figure 3 that the rate is a 'little' slower than that of in Figures 1 and 2, but it is what it means by 'a little', which is a subjective description. Rate median 0.0114 in Fig. 3 inset is a little slower than 0.0128 in Figs. 1 and 2, reflecting Fig. 3 was considered slower rated (not sensitive) 18S rRNA data. The authors mention that the tree topology (based on COI) was unaffected by 18S rRNA. In other words, Figures 1, 2, and 3 are the same trees. If this is true, I am not sure presenting three identical trees is a good practice. Moreover, the authors must explore if the congruence occurred because they actually are congruent or simply the signals in 18S rRNA is too small to override the signals in COI. It would be interesting to explore the tree based on 18S rRNA. Note that COI tree is for 352 specimens and tips, and COI + 18S rRNA tree is for 1492 specimens and tips, and not strictly identical and congruent. 18S rRNA tree is “low resolution” and discordant COI tree. Seealso “Why was BEAST2 not used”. typo {Abstract} parapheletic -> paraphyletic. In R1, we revise. typo {Figure 2} OUTs -> OTUs. In R1, we revise. substrituions/site/myr and s/s/myr are used interchangeably. It would be a good idea to define for the first time and stick to the abbreviated version. We will delete later appeared “substrituions/site/myr”. Some journal ask to offer abbreviations, but now not a case. Table 1 has a header labeled as 'country', but in fact, 'sampling locality' might be a better description of the content. Also, it might be a better to specify what accession numbers the authors are referring to, GenBank? In GenBank/DDJB “country” is requested to use. Also our data with accession numbers are found in GenBank/DDBJ. Table 2 caption must be improved. In R1, we will check English. It is unclear how the authors decided to use HKY model for the BEAST analysis. Default setting. The authors mentioned that the 95\% highest posterior density for confidence intervals of ages are not shown in Figure 1--3 to avoid visual complexity. Is it going to be available in supplementary material? This is important information to verify authors' claims regarding the node ages in the manuscript. Please consider adding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) bars to represent confidence intervals for ages on each node in Figure 2. The figure becomes further busy. We believe they may not add significant meaning. Figure 4 mentions the number of base changes for whole mitochondrial gene, but the two plots are based only on COI and 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. The caption needs improvement. Vertical axis is COI numbers of base changes and 18S rRNA numbers of base changes, respectively in left sided COI and right sided 18S rRNA figures. In results, the authors refer to Figure 3 as COI + 16S rRNA. It seemed like the authors were working on 18S rRNA. It's confusing which is correct. We found four mistakes of 16S rRNA in page 11 including Osozawa et al. (2016), and we collect as 18S rRNA and Osozawa et al. (2017a) in R1. The authors mentioned that the rate has exponentially increased into Holocene based on the incets of Figure 1--3. But no Holocene was labeled anywhere in these figures. Also, the authors stated the curves and rates are similar for the incets in Figure 1,2 and 3, but it is hard to understand how the authors concluded that they are 'similar', which is a very subjective description. The Holocene is the most recent epoch of the Quaternary period, following the boundary at 0.0117 Ma. We acknowledge the difficulty in accurately labeling the time point at 0.0117 Ma in Figures 1 to 3. Compare formula in the same one in Fig. 1 and 2, and the distinct one in Fig. 3. We were hoping your constructive review about increasing rate, factor, and affect. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Phylogenetics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Kong S. Peer Review Report For: Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially increasing base substitution rates in recent geologic time [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :308 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.80022.r179259) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v1#referee-response-179259 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v5" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v5&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v5" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Osozawa S and Wakabayashi J'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v5/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308", templates : { twitter : "Cicada minimum age tree: Cryptic speciation and exponentially.... Osozawa S and Wakabayashi J, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-308/v5" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/76068/177914") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "177914"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "179247": 0, "179245": 0, "179249": 0, "179255": 0, "179252": 0, "179253": 0, "179259": 35, "179257": 0, "137278": 0, "137279": 0, "179263": 0, "137277": 0, "179261": 0, "361061": 0, "361060": 0, "292454": 0, "361063": 0, "292455": 30, "361062": 0, "292456": 0, "361065": 0, "361064": 0, "361067": 0, "361066": 0, "292468": 0, "135794": 0, "292469": 0, "135795": 0, "292470": 0, "361079": 0, "361078": 0, "135793": 0, "135798": 0, "135799": 0, "135796": 0, "292467": 0, "135797": 0, "135800": 0, "292475": 0, "292482": 0, "129686": 0, "359069": 0, "359068": 0, "359071": 0, "359070": 0, "359067": 0, "359066": 0, "303268": 0, "303269": 0, "303270": 0, "303271": 0, "359073": 0, "303265": 0, "359072": 0, "303266": 0, "359075": 0, "303267": 0, "359074": 0, "303272": 0, "303273": 0, "303274": 0, "268990": 0, "164536": 0, "268991": 0, "268992": 0, "312542": 0, "312543": 0, "174814": 0, "154332": 0, "154333": 0, "312548": 0, "312549": 0, "312550": 0, "312551": 0, "256231": 0, "312544": 0, "312545": 0, "312546": 0, "312547": 0, "174309": 0, "256235": 0, "256234": 0, "256233": 0, "256232": 0, "256239": 0, "256238": 0, "256237": 0, "256236": 0, "256240": 0, "184591": 0, "184588": 21, "184589": 0, "313620": 0, "313621": 0, "313622": 0, "184592": 0, "313623": 0, "184599": 0, "184596": 0, "313619": 0, "184602": 0, "184603": 0, "184600": 0, "184601": 0, "313624": 0, "313625": 0, "313626": 0, "356655": 0, "356654": 0, "260402": 0, "356656": 0, "156474": 0, "138555": 0, "348993": 0, "348995": 0, "348994": 0, "260427": 0, "260426": 0, "260425": 0, "349007": 0, "349006": 0, "260431": 15, "260430": 0, "260428": 0, "260434": 0, "349012": 0, "260433": 0, "349009": 0, "349008": 0, "349011": 0, "260436": 0, "349010": 0, "354653": 0, "354652": 0, "354655": 0, "354654": 0, "354651": 10, "354660": 0, "265063": 0, "354657": 0, "354656": 0, "354659": 0, "354658": 0, "265068": 0, "352109": 0, "265069": 0, "352108": 0, "265070": 0, "352111": 0, "265071": 0, "352110": 0, "265064": 0, "352105": 0, "265065": 0, "352104": 0, "265066": 0, "352107": 0, "265067": 0, "352106": 0, "137072": 0, "265072": 0, "352113": 0, "352112": 0, "177028": 0, "158106": 0, "158107": 0, "278948": 0, "278949": 0, "278950": 0, "278951": 0, "278947": 0, "278956": 0, "278952": 0, "278953": 0, "156591": 0, "278954": 0, "278955": 0, "366525": 8, "330173": 6, "366524": 0, "330172": 0, "366526": 0, "330174": 0, "366523": 0, "330171": 0, "366522": 0, "127431": 0, "127430": 0, "127433": 0, "127432": 0, "195550": 0, "195551": 0, "157695": 0, "164860": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "79e33fd2-429d-4d38-99de-cdc9d39d195f"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });