Hi, folks Did you notice it?
No, but why should we? It's just another failure of peer review. Probably a failure of the editors to find competent reviewers -- the name of the journal sounds like it's only about humans.
The [untested and probably untestable] absence of such a genetic sex determining mechanism in dinosaurs may have led to a skewed sex ratio when global temperature dramatically changed 65,000,000 years ago, resulting in a preponderance of males, and consequentially a rapid decline in population.
For crying out loud, this crackpottery is not even new! It's been out there for _decades_!
I can go at length into why it's crackpottery. Is anyone interested? Probably it has all been discussed on this list several times already.