Nat Geo BS

The national geographic Magazine is not a peer reviewed journal, but alot of people now adays seem to be treating it like one. Paul Sereno gets sent all over the world to dig up new dinosaurs, artists make renderings of them and they end up in the public eye within only a few months of discovery. Not only that, but the initial reconstructions are based on material that is either incomplete, badly crushed or both. I'm not saying that Sereno isn't a great phylogeneticist, or even an excellent field technician, but to say that his reconstructions of much of the material he finds is accurate or even scientifically useful, would be like saying that children in the countries which he collects these dinosaurs from aren't starving. It's just not true. It seems that he can't go to another country without finding another abelisaurid carnosaur, then bases his analysis on material that requires a bit of imagination to interpret. for example, the new Rajasaurus seems to look an auful lot like majungatholus, right down to the horny covering of the nasal. I have no problem with him atributing it to abelisauridae based on the the metatarsals and its ganuanian location, but to put it phylogenetically next to majungatholus and carnotaurus to the exclusion of carcariodontosaurus and giganatosaurus is just outrageous. Biogeograhy should have shed alot of doubt on that phylogenetic position, especially considering the gaps in that small of a data set!!!