<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ccffff" text="#000000">
In my recollection, this is the first typology article to be
published in Nature:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09923.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09923.html</a>.
Congratulations to our colleagues in Auckland and Nijmegen!<br>
<br>
There is also a popularized account in Nature News
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110413/full/news.2011.231.html">http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110413/full/news.2011.231.html</a>),
and a Nature editorial about "Universal truths"
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7342/full/472136a.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7342/full/472136a.html</a>).
How wonderful to see that typology has become so important!<br>
<br>
(Unfortunately, I don't see what is new in the paper – maybe someone
can explain this? Didn't we know all along that we are not likely to
get correlations if we don't control for genealogical relatedness?)<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
</body>
</html>