1: \begin{abstract}

2: 

3: \noindent The recent claim by Grebenev~{\it et~al.}~[\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aa8c69}{J.~Phys.~A:~Math.~Theor.$\,$50,~435502~(2017)}] that\linebreak[4] the inviscid 2D Lundgren-Monin-Novikov (LMN) equations on a zero vorticity characteristic naturally would reveal local conformal invariance when only analyzing these by means of a classical Lie-group symmetry approach, is invalid and will be refuted in the present comment. To note is that within this comment the (possible) existence of conformal invariance in 2D turbulence is not questioned, only the conclusion as is given in \cite{Grebenev17} and their approach how this invariance was derived is what is being criticized and refuted herein. In~fact, the algebraic derivation for conformal invariance of the 2D LMN vorticity equations in\linebreak[4] \cite{Grebenev17} is flawed. A key constraint of the LMN equations has been wrongly transformed. Providing the correct transformation instead will lead to a breaking of the proclaimed conformal group. The corrected version of \cite{Grebenev17} just leads to a globally constant scaling in the fields and not to a local one as claimed. In consequence,\linebreak since in \cite{Grebenev17} only the first equation within the infinite and unclosed\linebreak[4] LMN chain is considered, also different Lie-group infinitesimals for the one- and two-point probability density functions (PDFs) will result from this correction, replacing thus the misleading ones proposed.

4: 

5: \vspace{0.5em}\noindent{\footnotesize{\bf Keywords:} {\it Statistical Physics, Conformal Invariance, Turbulence, Probability Density Functions, Lie Groups, Symmetry Analysis, Integro-Differential Equations, Closure Problem}}\\

6: {\footnotesize{\bf PACS:} 47.10.-g, 47.27.-i, 05.20.-y, 02.20.Qs, 02.20.Tw, 02.30.Rz, 02.50.Cw

7: }

8: \end{abstract}