“…No correctly statistically analysed papers were found during this search, but the following 23 recent studies are examples of a common approach whereby a physiological variable for a species (e.g. BMR, C, EWL etc) is subjectively judged to be different from the allometrically expected value (Baudinette et al 2000, Geiser and Brigham 2000, McNab 2000, Merola-Swartjes and Ligon 2000, Weathers et al 2000, Anava et al 2001, McNab 2001, Williams 2001, Schleucher 2002, Bonaccorso and McNab 2003, Burton and Weathers 2003, Cortes et al 2003, Kalin et al 2003, Lindstrom and Klaassen 2003, Lovegrove and Smith 2003, McKechnie and Lovegrove 2003, Peinke and Brown 2003, Song and Wang 2003, Bozinovic et al 2004, Mathias et al 2004, Williams et al 2004. The percentage of the species' value relative to the expected value (obtained from the allometric equation for an animal of equivalent mass) was interpreted to be high (somewhat greater than 100%), low (somewhat less than 100%) or as expected (around 100%).…”