Modern science thrives on pretention. We can't just publish something interesting, we always feel compelled arguing why it's important and stress its ground-breaking novelty. On the other hand, everyone can use computers, and those computers can do fancy analyses provided you have some data. And they always get it right, so why should editors and reviewers bother about the results?

In this post, I point out (for future reference since both reviewers were shy to point the severe deficits out) why the authors would have been well advised to just focus on the description of their new data instead of rejecting earlier studies as being based on "DNA fragments with limited polymorphic information loci" (despite this, got the same tree) and adding a quick-shot out-of-the hip dating and a flawed and pointless ancestral area reconstruction.