Congratulations to this nice study on weevil evolution. All is up to teh state of the art, however, in regard of adreessing the research questino I have one major concern only which relates to the study design and the Discussion:
The authors address the number of origins of brood-site interactions/ pollination, however, in the extensive discussion little is said of the context of timing which would be highly informative to place the evolutionary shifts into a paleoecological context.
I may understand, that is a quite a bit of more effort, but as sampling was quite dense, it would be a valuable option to provide a fossil or otherwise calibrated time tree too. Alternatively, there should be an understandable reasoning, why this aspect of inference was omitted.

A few minor issues shall be addressed to improve further the paper:

Line 110: use an alternative wording for „monobasic“ which is not unambiguously clear term.

Line 149: “3.3 genera” - Is this number really meaningful? Probably more serious to just refer to the span and type genera. I would find additionally informative the total number of genera and total number of species to be presented here.

Lines 159-175. Information given widely presented in Table 1, redundant.

Line 188: delete ; after 2018, or is there something missing?

Line 190: Could you specify please more in detail, what comprise the flanking regions. Can they be homologized with each other?

Line 193: Delete comma in Shin et al., (2018).

Line 287: Why taxa with uncertain character states were deleted? Could it not be that is has an impact of ancestral state reconstruction?

Line 435: please check reference of “McKenna 2019, 2020”. The first is not in te reference list or maybe an “et al.” was omitted?

Congratulations, all minor issues were convincingly replied and addressed.