  Angus et al. (2015) have recently faulted MOND as follows: Studying thirty
disc galaxies from the DiskMass survey, they derive the profiles of velocity
dispersion perpendicular to the discs as predicted by MOND, $\sigma_M(r)$, and
compare them with $\sigma(r)$, measured as part of the DiskMass project. This
is a new test of MOND, different from rotation-curve analysis. A nontrivial
accomplishment of MOND -- not discussed by Angus et al. -- is that the shapes
of $\sigma_M$ and $\sigma$ agree very well, i.e,
$\eta(r)\equiv\sigma_M(r)/\sigma(r)$ is well consistent with being
$r$-independent (while $\sigma$ and $\sigma_M$ are strongly $r$ dependent). The
fault found with MOND was that $\eta$ is systematically above 1 (with an
average of about 1.3). I have suggested to Angus et al. that the fault may lie
with the DiskMass dispersions, which may well be too low for the purpose at
hand: Being based on population-integrated line profiles, they may be
overweighed by younger populations, known to have much smaller dispersions, and
scale heights, than the older populations, which weigh more heavily on the
light distributions. I discuss independent evidence that supports this view,
and show, besides, that if the DiskMas dispersions are underestimates by only
25 %, on average, the MOND predictions are in full agreement with the data, in
shape and magnitude. Now, Aniyan et al. (2015) have questioned the DiskMass
$\sigma$ on the same basis. They show for the solar column in the Milky Way
that: " Combining the (single) measured velocity dispersion of the total young
+ old disc population... with the scale height estimated for the older
population would underestimate the disc surface density by a factor of $\sim
2.$" If this mismatch found for the Milky Way is typical, correcting for it
would bring the measured DiskMass $\sigma(r)$ to a remarkable agreement with
the predicted MOND $\sigma_M(r)$.
