When it still was completely free, Wolfram Alpha was one of my favorite search engines. Because it would provide me with nerdy data. But when you search your family name, it becomes racist. Not their fault, they just dig all available data.
#FightTheFog (14) ancestors (3) animals (3) artwork (6) Austria (1) bad science (5) Beall's legacy (4) bias (2) branch support (3) Bundestagswahl (6) curiosities (1) data links (3) France (8) free science (3) funny things (3) Germany (6) in Deutsch (16) infographics (18) introduction (1) Ireland (1) Köppen-Geiger (3) Landtagswahlen (4) languages (4) lost science (2) not science (7) oddities (7) open access (1) open data (1) palaeontology (9) peer review (9) Philosophisches (2) phylo-networks (10) plants (11) politics (20) public interest (11) satire (8) science-related (13) Sweden (2) terminology (3) tips (14) USA (16) Wahl-O-Mat (3)
It may look (to some) like a good idea to take modern-day altitudinal ranges of genera to infer a palaeo-altitude of a fossil plant assemblage using a mutually shared range approach. A fresh example from the purportedly peer-reviewed Elsevier journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (PPP).
The Coexistence Approach is a pseudo-science. At least, it's fundamentally flawed in theory and practise. But one journal remains the bastion of true faith. But maybe tides are changing?
BSP pretends to be a proper scientific publisher, and not a predatory one. So, why sending an invitation to become a reviewer of some medicinal journal to a former scientist (see counter on my homepage) that dealt in phylogenetics and palaeobotany?
In 2007, a short but nice paper by Vidal-Russell & Nickrent provided a scenario for the unfolding of the Loranthaceae, a plant family of mostly epiphytic tree parasites. Recently, they teamed up with a Chinese group (Liu, Le et al. 2018) to provide a new, and totally unexpected hypothesis.
Elsevier's research data "not available/will be made available on request" – what will be your choice?
What do you do when authors claim something (showing nothing) that you know can't be true (because you showed otherwise)? Just request the data they used and re-analyse it to check. But this is not how it works. An example from Elsevier's Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution.
Far the most palaeophylogenetic studies rely exclusively on tree-inference as methodological framework. Thus, ignoring the fundamental properties over the underlying data: matrices that provide few tree-like signals. A recommendation what to show (and why).