Paper detail

An extended reply to Mendez et al.: The 'extremely ancient' chromosome that still isn't

Earlier this year, we published a scathing critique of a paper by Mendez et al. (2013) in which the claim was made that a Y chromosome was 237,000-581,000 years old. Elhaik et al. (2014) also attacked a popular article in Scientific American by the senior author of Mendez et al. (2013), whose title was "Sex with other human species might have been the secret of Homo sapiens's [sic] success" (Hammer 2013). Five of the 11 authors of Mendez et al. (2013) have now written a "rebuttal," and we were allowed to reply. Unfortunately, our reply was censored for being "too sarcastic and inflamed." References were removed, meanings were castrated, and a dedication in the Acknowledgments was deleted. Now, that the so-called rebuttal by 45% of the authors of Mendez et al. (2013) has been published together with our vasectomized reply, we decided to make public our entire reply to the so called "rebuttal." In fact, we go one step further, and publish a version of the reply that has not even been self-censored.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.