The abstract directly states "Inferred trophic roles range from detritivores to predators, but all are based on indirect evidence such as body and gut morpholog

The abstract directly states "Inferred trophic roles range from detritivores to predators, but all are based on indirect evidence such as body and gut morphology, modes of preservation and attributed feeding traces; no trilobite specimen with internal gut contents has been described [3,4]." Can your local paleontologist give you a single citation showing direct inspection of a trilobite gut? Because the way you wrote it, you just said "the food of trilobytes have been known for 20 years or so". That doesn't contradict what the authors say, but rather, ignores the fact that this is the first direct, physical evidence in the gut of a fossil. That kind of data is generally weighted much higher than any indirect evidence (which I think is what was available before). I don't argue that scientists juice their studies to get attention/justify the funding, but I think your criticism is probably missing the literal truth of the statement (and if you show me a single cite disproving their statement, I'm happy to change my mind).