  A debate has arisen concerning the fundamental nature of LBVs) and their role
in stellar evolution. While Smith and Tombleson proposed that their isolated
environments indicate that LBVs must be largely the product of binary
evolution, Humphreys et al. have recently expressed the view that the
traditional single-star view still holds if one appropriately selects a
subsample of LBVs. This paper finds the claim of Humphreys et al. to be
quantitatively unjustified. A statistical test of "candidate" as opposed to
"confirmed" LBVs shows no significant difference ($<$1$\sigma$) between their
environments. Even if the sample is further subdivided as proposed, the three
most luminous LBVs are spatially dispersed similar to late O-type dwarfs, which
have much longer lifetimes than expected for classical LBVs. Lower-luminosity
LBVs have a distribution associated with red supergiants (RSGs), but these RSGs
are dominated by stars of 10-15 M$_{\odot}$ initial mass, with much longer
lifetimes than expected for those lower-luminosity LBVs. If one's view is
restricted to the highest-luminosity LBVs, then the appropriate comparison is
with early O-type stars that are their presumed progenitors, when this is done,
it is clear that even the high-luminosity LBVs are more dispersed than
expected. Humphreys et al. also suggest that velocities of LBVs support the
single-star view, being inconsistent with runaways. A quantitative analysis of
the radial velocity distribution of LBVS in M31 and M33 contradicts this,
modest runway speeds expected from mass gainers in binary evolution are
consistent with the observed velocities, although the data lack the precision
to discriminate.
