Given that both reviewers commented on this issue, we tried to clarify our aims and included a sentence at the end of the introduction, in order to clarify the point.
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.