I recently received a referee report on a math paper in a mid-tier journal.
In this paper I proved (to give an example avoiding technicalities) that all dogs are cute. But the referee claimed in his report that I claimed that all animals are cute (that is, he claimed that I proved something much stronger than what I really proved).
There is no way to understand the more general statement from my paper, and my guess is that the referee simply did not read the paper carefuly.
Now, the referee recommended acceptance, and the editor accepted his recommendation.
Should I do something about it? should I explain this to the editor?