In his Commentary (Manger PR. 2009. Subglacial cetaceans and other mathematical mysteries: a Commentary on “A quantitative test of the thermogenesis hypothesis of cetacean brain evolution, using phylogenetic comparative methods” by C. Maximino. Mar Fresh Behav Physiol. 42: 359–362) on my paper (Maximino C. 2009. A quantitative test of the thermogenesis hypothesis of cetacean brain evolution, using phylogenetic comparative methods. Mar Freshwater Behav Physiol. 42:1–17), Dr Paul Manger noted four errors in the quantitative analysis of the relationship between cetacean encephalization quotients (EQs) and water temperatures, which I suggested was a test of his thermogenesis hypothesis (Manger PR. 2006. An examination of cetacean brain structure with a novel hypothesis correlating thermogenesis to the evolution of a big brain. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 81:293–338). These referred to incorrect raw data on water temperatures for two species, odd use of midpoint temperatures as independent variable, lack of inclusion of data on Mysticeti and the use of a differently derived EQ and midpoints instead of the EQs proposed by Manger and temperature ranges; Dr Manger proposed that these errors invalidate the analysis, with special emphasis in an observation that, since my paper did not address the relationship between EQs and temperature range, it did not actually test the thermogenesis hypothesis. In this Reply, I apologize for the mistakes which were made, and show that re-analysis using all the proposed alterations do not qualitatively or quantitatively alter the final result. I also argue that the relationship between phylogenetically correct EQs and midpoint temperatures is a better test of the thermogenesis hypothesis than the relationship between non-phylogenetic EQs and temperature ranges.