Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Cássio Lázaro Silva Inacio
Do you understand and agree to our policy of having open and named reviews, and having your review included with the published papers. (If no, please inform the editor that you cannot review this manuscript.)	Yes
Is the language of sufficient quality?	Yes
Please add additional comments on language quality to clarify if needed
Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper?	No
Additional Comments	Unfortunately, I was unable to find the data on GBIF.
Are the data and metadata consistent with relevant minimum information or reporting standards? See GigaDB checklists for examples <a href="http://gigadb.org/site/guide" target="_blank">http://gigadb.org/site/guide</a>	Yes
Additional Comments
Is the data acquisition clear, complete and methodologically sound?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient detail in the methods and data-processing steps to allow reproduction?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is the validation suitable for this type of data?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient information for others to reuse this dataset or integrate it with other data?	Yes
Additional Comments
Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author	The text describes the digitization of data from the Bonne-Wepster Collection, which was collected over several decades from various regions around the world. Although the manuscript's title refers specifically to the Bonne-Wepster Collection, data from other collections, including those from the ZMAN and RMNH, were also digitized and included in the manuscript, as well as information from field notebooks. The manuscript contains valuable scientific information about insects worldwide and has great potential for reuse. However, some parts of the manuscript require further attention and could benefit from revision during the review process. In terms of context, it's important to note that while mosquitoes are often associated with disease transmission, they do not transmit diseases themselves. Rather, the agents that cause diseases, such as the plasmodia that cause malaria, are transmitted through mosquito bites. Additionally, the authors should clarify whether the Bonne-Wepster, RMNH, and ZMAN collections are all part of a single large collection or if they are separate collections located in different places. It would also be helpful if the authors could provide examples of photographs of the holotypes mentioned in the manuscript, which would help to clarify the content. It would be helpful if the authors included the complete links for references 21 and 22. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the data for references 21 and 22. Finally, the authors need to ensure the accuracy of the taxonomic coverage presented in the manuscript. For example, some of the taxa listed, such as Chaoborus, Chironomus, Simulium, and Tipulida (?), do not belong to the Culicidae family and should be reviewed for accuracy.
Recommendation	Minor Revision