The success in reconstructing phylogeny has perhaps made us overconfident, believing that we should have similar success in phylogenetic studies of ancestral states, character correlation and diversification.However, the optimism shouldn’t transfer: reconstructions of phylogeny itself gain their power from the entire genome, while methods using phylogeny to answer evolutionary questions usually have sample sizes limited to the number of species at best.You can think of this as a bootstrap problem, if you like: a question won’t be recognized as important until there are a bunch of highly cited papers about it, but we won’t write or cite papers about a question until it’s widely recognized as important. Following on from the previous link: which scientific papers are Sleeping Beauties?That is, papers that went unnoticed for a long time, before generating intense interest?And then when challenged on it by a journalist, uploaded a revised version of his cv lacking the award and flat out lied about doing so.
And if you can’t value yourself from within, you never will find value from without.Oh, and there’s now evidence that he faked a second paper.(UPDATE #2: Yep, he faked that second paper.) I’ll never understand the psychology of this sort of thing.” A mature field ponders “What are the limits of what we can know?