I don't think so - they claim it is well suited but simultaneously claim it was wrong by 271% when compared to mitochondrial + nuclear DNA samples because mitoc

I don't think so - they claim it is well suited but simultaneously claim it was wrong by 271% when compared to mitochondrial + nuclear DNA samples because mitochondrial DNA "is a relatively small part of the genome". I thought the advantage of mitochondrial DNA was its stability but if it leads to that margin of error it makes me curious about the reliability of other evolutionary work.