The Caveman’s Corner

Weird mistake in D. masillae paper?

I noticed this reading through the paper for my last post. I’ll quote how the authors describe Table 3:

Table 3 lists 30 anatomical and morphological characteristics commonly used to distinguish extant strepsirrhine and haplorhine primates. They were taken from the standard primate textbook by Fleagle [74], form the classic W. C. Osman Hill monographs of Strepsirrhine and Haplorhini [75, 76], and from additional references listed in Table 3.

p. 24.

Reference 74 is listed thus:

Fleagle, JG (1999) Primate Adaptation and Evolution, second edition. San Diego: Academic Press. 528 p.

That book is neither 528 pages in length nor does page 528 seem relevant at all to the paper. It is a part of a discussion on on the origins of bipedalism in the chapter on hominids. There’s no mention of haplorhines, strepsirhines, anthropoids, or even particularly any specific features. I can’t think what other meaning “528 p” could have. I noticed because I was actually curious what part of Fleagle the authors of the D. masillae paper were referring to. I can’t recall any similar listing of features, so they must have collated from a broad swath of the text. I don’t have copies of the other references, so can’t speak to them.

I could well be misunderstanding something in the citation. If not, weird. I don’t know what that says about PLoS ONE. Maybe these things are common.