The original research [1, section 4] is slightly more cautious (but otherwise agrees): > It is tempting to suggest that we can now predict the temporal limits

The original research [1, section 4] is slightly more cautious (but otherwise agrees): > It is tempting to suggest that we can now predict the temporal limits of DNA survival, and finally refute the claims of authentic DNA from Cretaceous and Miocene specimens. This is, however, not straightforward. One needs information on the number of template molecules in living tissues, and estimates of post-mortem DNA decay rates for each tissue type. However, the half-life predictions display the extreme improbability that an authentic 174 bp long mtDNA fragment of an 80–85 Myr old bone could have been amplified. I looked at the paper partly because I was interested in the possibility that some multi-base strands survive, even though such strands would be very short. The "half-life" here was measured by qPCR, where a relatively large amplicon (a fragment being amplicated via PCR) was used. So this study doesn't preclude a possibility of very short (~100 bp) strands surviving, though this would require most enzymes to be much less effective at breaking such strands. [1] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2012.1745 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2012.174...