The article purports to undertake a number of different evaluations to determine if Hemiptera invasions (and more specifically invasions of superfamilies) are more or less represented than by chance alone. The question is worthwhile and would represent a valuable contribution however as the manuscript stands there are too many issues with the current version to recommend it is accepted.

The introduction is not succinct and does not provide sufficient introduction to the reasoning behind the neutral model underpinning the hypotheses. The introduction also anticipates the outcome of "over-representation" with insufficient background or support from the literature.

The author(s) are prone to hyperbole and should remove the overstated claims of "exceptional", "massive", etc...

There are a number of underlying assumptions that remain unclear or are implicit and unstated. The author should provide background explanation why they anticipate each of the various hypotheses they examine: 1) the invasion number for a superfamily should have the same proportional representation of all Hemiptera invaders as the proportional global superfamily representation s relative to global Hemiptera (noting the caveat of continual discovery and species descriptions); 2) the proportional representation of each superfamily within non-native assemblages is proportional to the native superfamily representation in the region; and 3) are superfamilies that are 'over-represented' in non-native assemblages also over-represented in border detections (=propagule pressure); 4) the proportional representation of each superfamily within non-native assemblages is proportional to the non-native plant invaders. The introduction provides insufficient explanation that these expectations are based on a neutral or null model of invasion transport and establishment. Similarly hypothesis 2 ignores a large body of work that suggests regions that are native taxa poor within taxonomic groups are more susceptible to invasion.

The treatment of the fourth question relating to evaluating proportional invasion success relative to established non-native plants is insufficient and should be removed. Much like not all Hemiptera are equal, not all superfamilies respond to all non-native plants. This is a spurious analysis at best and does not add to the primary focus of the manuscript.

Further there are challenges that the authors need to address to ensure that the study is replicable. The methods are unclear and incomplete. Define how the databases were evaluated for "credible quality" - what criteria were used and how was this applied. Which databases were used (line 138).

The selection of regions is unclear, but the separation of Japan, Okinawa and Ogasawara Islands is unexplained and appears to be arbitrary. I would strongly suggest these are combined into a single region, or Okinawa and Ogasawara Islands are removed given the lack of information for subsequent analyses.

The description as to how the "line" in the graphs (eg 736) was constructed is unclear and needs to be clarified.

The intent of the authors is there but revision is needed to bring it to light.
The plant invasion information is missing from methods, but then found as a footnote of Table S2.

I commend the authors with clarifying the manuscript and ensuring that both reviewers' concerns were addressed. I find the revised manuscript to have met all of my concerns and is greatly improved. I am therefore happy to recommend acceptance.