RE: New paper on Neoaves

[mike@miketaylor.org.uk (Mike Taylor)]

gerarus@westnet.com.au writes:
>>>    I won't comment on the molecular dating - I'm deeply distrustful
>>> of such things, and I doubt that I could say much that would really
>>> add to a discussion (beyond wild mutterings and howls).
> 
>     I should have added that, besides, until the supplementary data
> are available and it's possible to find out what exactly are the
> fossil taxa used in calibration, there's not a heck of a lot _anyone_
> can say.
 
What is it with this trend towards putting all the actual science in
supplementary information rather than the actual paper?  Several
papers I've seen recently, especially in Science-'n'-Nature, are
essentially meaningless when standing alone.  How does that help
anyone?
 
 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "The idea behind PhyloCode is to get all the bickering done
         now so the future generations don't have to worry about it" --
         T. Michael Keesey