tokens: paper. A direct comparison with our kinematic estimate is also difficult because they do not specify at which radius the rotation velocity is measured. Our data however seem to rule out the possibility of a value of 150 km s −1 for the line-of-sight velocity: In such cases, the combined effect of rotation velocity, velocity dispersion, and instrumental smearing would have made the galaxy to spread its emission in channels with velocities well beyond those detected in our data cube (for example, in the first channel of Fig. 2 ). Livermore et al. ( 2015 ) included the data set from Yuan et al. ( 2011 ) in a broader study on the kinematics of a sample of lensed galaxies. Similarly to Yuan et al., they fitted the delensed 2D kinematic velocity map with an arctangent model of the rotation curve (Courteau 1997 ) without any correction for beam smearing and found a rotation velocity V 2.2 = 59 ± 3 km s −1 at R 2.2 = 1.32 kpc for an inclination i = 45°, where R 2.2 is the radius at 2.2 times the scalelength of an exponential disc. Although MUSE data have lower spatial resolution than OSIRIS data, our rotation curve seems to exclude such a low rotation velocity at 1.32 kpc (Figs 4 and 5 ), even after correcting for the different inclination ( V 2.2 ≃ 73 km s −1 for i = 35°). Since Livermore et al. do not report their asymptotic velocity nor turnover radius of the best-fitting arctangent function, we cannot compare the values of the flat part of the rotation curve. To constrain the velocity dispersion, Livermore et al. fitted an exponential model to the velocity dispersion map, which they derived applying a correction for beam smearing and spectral broadening. They quote a luminosity-weighted average of σ = 50 ± 10 km s −1 . This value is however strongly affected by the two inner points (see their Fig. 2 ), which appear to be dominated by residual beam smearing. Finally, we stress that the Livermore et al.'s kinematic model does not satisfactorily reproduce their data (see the residual velocity field in their fig. 1). This is likely due to a combination of the low S/N AO data, some beam smearing, and the uncertainties related to the lensing modelling. Mason et al. ( 2017 ) made use of the 3D fitting code galpak 3D (Bouché et al. 2015 ) on KMOS –λ5007 Å data. Like B arolo , this code fits 3D models to data cubes and properly accounts for beam smearing. The main difference between this code and B arolo is that, in galpak 3D , the rotation curve follows a pre-selected functional form and the velocity dispersion is always assumed to be constant across the disc. Mason et al. have observations of both M1 and M3 images. They could not fully model the M3 image because it is unresolved. M1 image is poorly detected with S/N ∼ 2 in their data, and the KMOS FOV is not sufficiently large to include the entire galaxy disc. They modelled the M1 image without any reconstruction on the source plane and found an asymptotic rotation velocity of 227 ± 32 km s −1 , an
ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Instrument O O O O O O B-Instrument O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ObservationalTechniques O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Software I-Software B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Instrument B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O B-Software I-Software O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Software I-Software O O O B-Software I-Software O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Instrument O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O