3 ms·
I always wonder how they look this stuff up when they're writing the research article. There's no database for the 'oldest plant to be sequenced' and whatnot th
by tsol 4y ago
I always wonder how they look this stuff up when they're writing the research article. There's no database for the 'oldest plant to be sequenced' and whatnot that you can just look up. If you look it up on Google, who's to say your source is up to date?
- culi 4y agoyeah, I'm sure there's plenty such claims that can be proven wrong. Unless it's already a well-known fact in the field. Like in archeology, the "oldest ... to be ..." is often very well known because it has direct consequences for their methodologies and paradigms Either way, I don't see why you would write off a whole bit of research for something that was probably just meant to be a side-comment to bring in some additional context for people outside the field
- ldoughty 4y agoI would suspect the statements are provided by the scientists. They are likely the best people to make such claims too (though that doesn't necessarily convey high accuracy)