Comments on revised manuscript

After this revision, some errors in the MS were fixed well. However, I feel it needs to be improved and revised as some errors is still existed as following: Abstract “Based on the genome, ~61.5Mb (18.11%) repeat sequences were identified 19,925 genes were annotated, and 90.01% of these genes could be predicted with function.” Grammatical errors. Missing comma. “Finally, a phylogenetic tree of ten teleost fish species was constructed .” The result from phylogenetic analysis is still absent in the current content. This point should be improved by adding the content “Finally, a phylogenetic tree of ten teleost fish species was constructed, which suggests …”. In addition, there is a redundant space in this sentence, this kind of error should be revised throughout the whole manuscript. Please check the manuscript carefully. Methods “A Nanopore library was constructed and sequenced on the GridION platform. In total, we obtained 120 Gb (~312 X) raw stLFR data, 19 GB (~ 49X) raw Hi-C data, and 12 GB (~ 32X) raw Pacbio data” An obvious error present in between “Nanopore library” and “raw Pacbio data”. According to author’s response, the Pacbio data should be replaced by nanopore data. We used Jellyfish (v2.2.6, RRID: SCR_005491) with 58 Gb clean stLFR reads to perform the k-17mer analysis [13], estimating the humpback buffer genome size about 385 Mb. Jellyfish can count kmer amount and species easily, however, the estimation of genome size should depend on other software or script. According to Fig. S1, GenomeScope should be the source to assist the genome size estimation. However, I can not see the citation and content mentioned that. “Finally, we perfomed the chromosomal-level scaffolding using the 3D de novo assembly (3D-DNA) pipeline (v. 170123) [17], which anchored 91.2% of total sequences to 18 chromosomes, the length ranging from 11 Mb to 35 Mb” How define the number (18) of chromosomes should be explained as I have mentioned in previous. However, the reason is still absent. “Phylogenetic analyses were performed using 4,461 single-copy protein-coding genes identified by gene family analysis.” The underline format is not required. Thus, although the improvement of this manuscript is obvious, yet it could not completely satisfy me, and I suggest minor revision for the current version.