I'm certainly guilty of that, too! But the ontogenetic angle has been personally frustrating at times, especially have spent some time with baby dinos and having named a very diagnostic but likely juvenile taxon!

I am a little too attached to it. But seriously, the occasional attitude that we can't possibly know anything taxonomic about juvenile specimens is a rather drastic overcorrection!

My only slight grumble is that they made me ditch the phrase "ontogenetic nihilism". Still gotta slip that into the literature at some point. But more seriously, editors are awesome, and I'm thrilled to have this out in the world.

Some behind-the-scenes notes - it was an honor and a treat to be invited to write this! The process illustrated how fantastic and important editors are - the Science editorial crew took what I thought was a pretty good draft, and kicked it up to the next level.

Oh, we definitely get black hole talk in our house, too. "How small could a black hole be?" "What's the smallest thing that could be a black hole?" "What would happen if a black hole formed out of [household object X/Y/Z?" etc. etc.

Natural consequences of their mom having a Ph.D. in physics...

I guess it comes down to the classic "impact is more than citations" kind of thing! <end thread>

I use "data papers" from the early 20th century all of the time - but "big idea papers"? Of course I read them and cite them and their intellectual contributions influenced the direction of the field, but I rarely *use* them directly in my day-to-day.

This is not to say that "data papers" are superior to "big idea" papers that move the field forward in sometimes major ways - but I often think that the long half-life of "data papers" (and their use in non-citation-based work, like museum specimen ID or illustration) is not always recognized.

Now, drawings in his work (and other works of the time) are notoriously unreliable as primary data, and discussions/interpretations of significance are often dated, but the raw morphological data - they *still* stand quite well.

Good question! No particular family, although it potentially could be a member of the clade Ceratopsoidea. (the supplemental info should be freely available, so you can check out the detailed trees there - note that parsimony and Bayesian analysis produce slightly different placements for some taxa)