Response to formal comment on Myhrvold (2016) submitted by Griebeler and Werner (2017)

Griebeler and Werner offer a formal comment on Myhrvold, 2016 defending the conclusions of Werner and Griebeler, 2014. Although the comment criticizes several aspects of methodology in Myhrvold, 2016, all three papers concur on a key conclusion: the metabolism of extant endotherms and ectotherms can...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2018-02, Vol.13 (2), p.e0192912-e0192912
Main Author: Myhrvold, Nathan P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Allometry
Animals
Biology and Life Sciences
Computer and Information Sciences
Dinosaurs
Earth Sciences
Ecology
Evolution & development
Formal Comment
Growth rate
Medicine and Health Sciences
Metabolism
Phylogenetics
Phylogeny
Research and Analysis Methods
Studies
Trends
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Griebeler and Werner offer a formal comment on Myhrvold, 2016 defending the conclusions of Werner and Griebeler, 2014. Although the comment criticizes several aspects of methodology in Myhrvold, 2016, all three papers concur on a key conclusion: the metabolism of extant endotherms and ectotherms cannot be reliably classified using growth-rate allometry, because the growth rates of extant endotherms and ectotherms overlap. A key point of disagreement is that the 2014 paper concluded that despite this general case, one can nevertheless classify dinosaurs as ectotherms from their growth rate allometry. The 2014 conclusion is based on two factors: the assertion (made without any supporting arguments) that the comparison with dinosaurs must be restricted only to extant sauropsids, ignoring other vertebrate groups, and that extant sauropsid endotherm and ectotherm growth rates in a data set studied in the 2014 work do not overlap. The Griebeler and Werner formal comment presents their first arguments in support of the restriction proposition. In this response I show that this restriction is unsupported by established principles of phylogenetic comparison. In addition, I show that the data set studied in their 2014 work does show overlap, and that this is visible in one of its figures. I explain how either point effectively invalidates the conclusion of their 2014 paper. I also address the other methodological criticisms of Myhrvold 2016, and find them unsupported.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0192912