Thanks for this reply. Since most people (myself included) are not familiar with the state of the art, this article sounds somewhat compelling, given it describ

Thanks for this reply. Since most people (myself included) are not familiar with the state of the art, this article sounds somewhat compelling, given it describes a plausible correction to the prolific idea of evolutionary trees. At least it's immediately clear they are overstating the impact of this work though, given the presentation style and inconsistency. Claiming the graph model and simultaneously dismissing LGT with no further explanation is nonsensical.