Formal comment on: Myhrvold (2016) Dinosaur metabolism and the allometry of maximum growth rate. PLoS ONE; 11(11): e0163205.

In his 2016 paper, Myhrvold criticized ours from 2014 on maximum growth rates (Gmax, maximum gain in body mass observed within a time unit throughout an individual's ontogeny) and thermoregulation strategies (ectothermy, endothermy) of 17 dinosaurs. In our paper, we showed that Gmax values of similar-sized extant ectothermic and endothermic vertebrates overlap. This strongly questions a correct assignment of a thermoregulation strategy to a dinosaur only based on its Gmax and (adult) body mass (M). Contrary, Gmax separated similar-sized extant reptiles and birds (Sauropsida) and Gmax values of our studied dinosaurs were similar to those seen in extant similar-sized (if necessary scaled-up) fast growing ectothermic reptiles. Myhrvold examined two hypotheses (H1 and H2) regarding our study. However, we did neither infer dinosaurian thermoregulation strategies from group-wide averages (H1) nor were our results based on that Gmax and metabolic rate (MR) are related (H2). In order to assess whether single dinosaurian Gmax values fit to those of extant endotherms (birds) or of ectotherms (reptiles), we already used a method suggested by Myhrvold to avoid H1, and we only discussed pros and cons of a relation between Gmax and MR and did not apply it (H2). We appreciate Myhrvold's efforts in eliminating the correlation between Gmax and M in order to statistically improve vertebrate scaling regressions on maximum gain in body mass. However, we show here that his mass-specific maximum growth rate (kC) replacing Gmax (= MkC) does not model the expected higher mass gain in larger than in smaller species for any set of species. We also comment on, why we considered extant reptiles and birds as reference models for extinct dinosaurs and why we used phylogenetically-informed regression analysis throughout our study. Finally, we question several arguments given in Myhrvold in order to support his results.