The paper is neat, clear and easy to read. I like the way the authors assembled their manuscript and presented ideas, results and discussion. Point is, sometimes simplicity is bargained for accuracy, and I am afraid to say this is the case with this manuscript. First, life-history based-explanations, and optimal body size-based explanations, are altogether ignored. They have been around for two decades now, cited extensively, and cannot be overlooked. Secondly, some of the ref list is quite erratic, referring to recent papers for old ideas presented by other authors. This is untenable and must be amended. I've restrained myself to refer to the flow of more appropriate/more original papers limiting to a very few, well-known classics. Paying attention to these aspects is absolutely necessary in my opinon.

After revision, the manuscript has maintained the great benefit it received from how it was assembled, clear, fast and simple. I appreciate both the style and scientific content.