We agree with the reviewer, this part was formulated clumsily. What we meant was actually exactly what the reviewer means. The two groups were polyphyletic and we could only chose a monophyletic group when analysing them together. We changed the sentence to: “… by two genera that were monophyletic only when taken together in the database used, e.g., Leptolyngbia and Chamaesiphon …” In accordance we did not check for relatedness of the taxa, neither in this one nor for any other one.
I do not understand why Leptolyngbya and Chamaesiphon could be “closely related genera”. It is in contraversion to the whole up to date results and taxonomic classification. The authors really found the “close” relation just between these two genera? By way, they both are polyphyletic and will be surely divided in several different taxa after the following precise studies.