Overall Feedback: Full Accept
The authors do a great job here describing evolutionary mismatch and how to test it. However, the title is misaligned with what the manuscript is talking about. Presently, this isn’t a “what to do about it” article (When I read the original title, I immediately thought of application, but that is barely covered in here (with the exception of one of the postscripts). A sentence from the abstract illustrated this: “The final section presents a list of practical questions for evaluating evolutionary mismatch hypotheses.” A better title that would align with the content of the manuscript would be something like Evolutionary Mismatch and How to Test It: A Basic Tutorial. Therefore, I believe the title should be updated in some way to reflect the content of the manuscript. In addition, I believe a simple illustration that shows the E1, E2, T model could be helpful for the reader. Perhaps a generic model followed by an example with the insects attracted to the glass as an example. Some parts of the manuscript are unnecessary long, and I believe this manuscript could benefit from a review by the authors with the goal of decreasing the text and making it more concise (not sure if the journal has a text limit but this manuscript is over 11 thousand words long). Lastly, while I understand the manuscript has been changed over time from a white paper to this, I think the postscripts should be included in the manuscript as they add a natural conclusion to the overall manuscript, but this is not necessary.
Specific Feedback:
Line 77: Change to 2024
Line 122: Add a period at the end of the sentence.
Line 129: Missing a reference here.
Line 265-266: There’s a punctuation error here.
Line 289-292: No need to include the first name and pronouns here.
Line 318: The period goes within the quotation marks.
Line 391: Put a comma in 60000.
Figure 2: Define what the – means in the figure.
Line 481: Provide a reference and possible example within this sentence.
Line 496: Remove extra “(“ in the intext citation.
Line 689: Fix punctuation and spacing here.
Line 752: Spacing issue here.
Line 827: A PHD thesis shouldn’t be cited as a source as it is not peer reviewed. Is there something else that can be cited here?
Line 862-864: Given the timeline of this overall manuscript, and what was shared with me, is this still true or should this be removed?
Line 866: Should “Summary List of Desirable types of evidence for a well-supported case.” Be a table for the manuscript? Also, why are some words bolded?
Line 917 and throughout: No need to stay “trait (T) and new environment (E2) throughout the manuscript. Because you’ve defined T to be trait, “trait (T)” technically reads as trait trait. Please adjust throughout.
Line 958: “they can lock their refrigerator overnight” is a little harsh. Maybe change to limiting food options brought into the house.
Line 990: Extra row here.
