On the phylogenetic analysis matter, while clearly not required in a publication of new taxon, this paper does make some rather sweeping claims about phylogeny, which one would expect to be supported by a phylogenetic analysis. It's not a requirement.
Thanks.
I have just commented over at the PLoS ONE website, and would encourage others to do the same. The advantage of commenting there (in addition to the blog comments, which are another important part of the dialog) is that those comments will presumably be a more permanent part of the scientific record.
On the phylogenetic analysis matter, while clearly not required in a publication of new taxon, this paper does make some rather sweeping claims about phylogeny, which one would expect to be supported by a phylogenetic analysis. It's not a requirement.
Thanks.
I have just commented over at the PLoS ONE website, and would encourage others to do the same. The advantage of commenting there (in addition to the blog comments, which are another important part of the dialog) is that those comments will presumably be a more permanent part of the scientific record.