I agree with previous posters that “fluff” is a silly and superficial way to describe an in-depth multifaceted article that looks at these remarkable paleontological discoveries from a lot of different angles, historical and cultural as well as scientific. For example, the bits about DePalma’s personal background are relevant to the issue of why some other scientists were originally hesitant (and some still may be) about believing his findings.
Calling the non-technical parts of the article “fluff” just comes across as a form of bragging that you are already familiar with some of the technical background. Well, good for you, dear, but that doesn’t mean that other aspects of the subject are necessarily trivial or unimportant, which is what the term “fluff” suggests.
The article indicates the burrow started at the top of the KT layer, rather than above it. Admittedly this doesn’t prove it was made immediately after the layer was laid down, rather than a few years later. But as has been said, DePalma is speculating.
Here is an article about the New Yorker article.
Interestingly, the part of the New Yorker article that your linked article critiques as somewhat overhyped and sensationalistic is the part that you said wasn’t “fluff”: i.e., the description of new findings. The thoughtful scientific and biographical contextual material that you contemptuously dismissed as 17 paragraphs of ‘“Cretaceous Extinction 101” recap’ is fine.
There’s a lot to be said for popular science writing that can explain background knowledge well and integrate it with new discoveries, rather than just breathlessly emphasizing how world-shaking (pun intended) the new discoveries are. In fact, self-proclaimed science-junkie readers who dismiss this kind of big-picture science writing as mere journalistic “fluff” encourage the unfortunate tendency to over-hype new discoveries and make them out to be more revolutionary than they are.
Seriously? That article is pretty much bullshit itself. They haven’t seen the actual PNAS article either, and don’t know what’s in it. And the New Yorker article doesn’t claim to be based just on what’s in the PNAS paper either. And if that article is correct about what’s in the PNAS paper, then the Science Daily and BBC articles are misrepresenting it as well. And fer chrissakes, they use one Catherine Crocker, “a postdoc at the Mailman School of Public Health, New York,” who advocates “understand[ing] the land and its secrets using the languages and cultures of the indigenous people who have been living there for millennia.” Talk about “fluff”!
I’ll be interested to see what’s actually in the PNAS article when it’s officially published tomorrow.
That is the second comment I’ve seen saying that the paper is only about the triceratops bone.
I started to read that article, but discovered this fluff:
Talk about an insult to our intelligence!!!
Do you have cites which don’t treat us like preschoolers?
Enough of the literary criticism, we should be marvelling at the wonders of nature. No, I’m not being sarcastic. This *shit *is fascinating (which was in fact a comment from Dickens that was plastered on the 1st edition dust jacket of Darwin’s “on the origin of species”. Sadly none now survive).
A question for those with greater knowledge than my own.
*Assuming *that the re-sized T-Rex is probably a representative from the the middle of the bell-curve in terms of adult size, have the experts done a calculation to say how big the biggest individual may have been. e.g. if elephants were fossilised today and dug up 3 million years hence then the likelihood is it would show a creature of 3.5 height and 5000kg in weight. The tallest ever individual is 4.2 m and 8000kg. Is there any reason to think that the same isn’t true of T-Rex or any prehistoric creature?
Thank you for the explanation of the photo. It was appreciated.
Does the photo show something important or unique? Is there a scarcity of fossilized tektite paths showing angle of entry?
Why are you so obsessed with defending your comically indefensible original accusation that the New Yorker article was “fluff”? Every time you try you just dig yourself in deeper. That article you cite is stupid and nonsensical, written by a self-described “science communicator” who seems to know less than just about anybody else here about either the science or the context in which the New Yorker discusses it. It goes on about violating “embargoes” for some reason, when in fact it’s pretty much routine standard procedure for stories to appear in the mainstream media in advance of a major scientific paper. It happens constantly, the news story generally beginning with wording like “a forthcoming paper to be published on [date] in the journal [name of journal] …”.
And then the writer obsesses about the fact that the New Yorker piece cites information that isn’t in the paper. What? I thought the New Yorker piece was all “fluff”, according to you! 
But what the hell kind of comment is that, anyway? Of course it has more information! Preston spent weeks talking to DePalma and other researchers. Now, any such additional information would not have been peer reviewed, so is the problem – as your ridiculous cite tries to claim – that the New Yorker article is bad science that might leave the reader with unsubstantiated impressions?
If you and your cited friend think the New Yorker piece is perverting science and sensationalizing the facts for the benefit of DePalma, read this (bolding mine):
One prominent West Coast paleontologist who is an authority on the KT event told me, “I’m suspicious of the findings. They’ve been presented at meetings in various ways with various associated extraordinary claims. He could have stumbled on something amazing, but he has a reputation for making a lot out of a little.” … Johnson, too, finds the lack of transparency, and the dramatic aspects of DePalma’s personality, unnerving. “There’s an element of showmanship in his presentation style that does not add to his credibility” …
Know where those critiques come from? From that same New Yorker article! That’s called balanced reporting. In-depth about the science, balanced about the controversies.
Agreed, that’s a ridiculous article written by a moron.
If that is the case, then as I have already pointed out the other articles you yourself linked to as well as the BBC report are gross exaggerations. Note that the actual press release is from the University of California at Berkeley, and was written by Robert Sanders, manager of Science Communications at Berkeley. And if that is the case, The Wire article is also wrong, since it says the article is mainly about fish.
DePalma is only one of the authors of the PNAS paper. They also include Walter Alvarez, one of the discoverers of the KT boundary layer, and a number of other senior scientists. Why you seem to prefer citing individuals who haven’t seen the original paper and evidently have no idea what is in it is beyond me.
It’s quite ironic that you cite an article decrying sensationalism in science reporting that itself is an example of sensationalistic reporting.
It is other people obsessing about my opinon of he fucking* New Yorker* article. I was trying to link to more reports about it until you derailed the thread–and continue to do so even though you said that you wouldn’t.
I concidered it a “breaking science news” story and considered most of the New Yorker story to be irrelevant to the breaking news aspect. If that continues to rub you the wrong way, tough shit.
The irony of it all is that both articles that Darren Garrison cited are breathlessly sensational and completely uncritical endorsements of the paper, gushing about what a fantastic discovery this is, while the New Yorker article is the only one that quotes independent researchers calling for more study and healthy skepticism, along with providing a lot more scientifically pertinent background.
If there are other known tektites that visibly penetrate several layers of strata, I haven’t heard of them. And preserving angle of entry would go a long way towards finding the location of craters for “orphaned” tektites. But the main significance of finding that example and others in the same layer as (and imbedded in) the fossils is in showing that the fossil-forming event happened at the same time that the tektites were raining down.
Will it shut you the hell up on this if I apologize? I’m sorry–I didn’t consider the lay audience. I’m used to sharing articles in this area to people for whom the New Yorker article would largely be a manual on teaching grandmothers how to suck eggs.
This article just published an hour ago by Science magazine also quotes independent researchers calling for caution and further independent verification.
In the article, Science magazine – a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science – quotes the New Yorker article several times. Strangely, it doesn’t quote either sciencedaily.com, Gizmodo, or thewire.in.
ETA:
You mean you thought we were all paleontologists? That’s still not an explanation. The New Yorker article contained a lot more actual science, and it also contained a more objectively balanced perspective.
You really, really, really, really should just stop digging.
The strangest thing to me about that article is that it says that the article was first submitted to a journal with a higher impact factor than PNAS, but the reviewers were too demanding. PNAS is an extremely prestigious journal with a very high impact factor, and the only higher ranking journals that come to mind are Science itself and Nature. Any scientist I know would be ecstatic to have a paper accepted by PNAS.
It does need to be mentioned that this paper was released on April Fools Day.