We understand that our choice of naming as in the database needed clarification. We have thus added the following paragraph. We thank the reviewer for the useful example and have included it: “The names of genera and species used in this study where copied form the names given in the database. This choice was made for the reason that cyanobacterial phylogeny underlies continuous changes and genera and species are often reclassified (e.g., [34]). Thus a whole different type of work would be required in order to use all state-of-art classification of cyanobacteria. Moreover, for the aims of this study not so much the phylogenetic classification of the bacterial species, but the genetic structure of the cyanobacterial 16S rRNA genes was of importance. The use of the names provided in the database on the other hand enables other researchers to conduct a similar analysis using the same sequences. Thus some old and revised names are used, for example the species name Anabaena bergii is used throughout the study despite its revised taxonomy in the genus Crysosporum [35].” (2)
Round 2: I accept the paper in the present form.