My pet peeve is basically the opposite of that: all the new papers
that don= 't explain in the text why certain novel nodes of the
cladogram exist=2C le= aving ONLY a digital matrix to slog through
(and I don't own any of the cla= distic software=2C so this involves
hours of doing reverse-cladistics in my= head... needless to say=2C I
tend not to bother). It's as if the results = aren't meant to be of
interest to any readers except the scientists working= on the next
cladistic analysis. How did Choiniere et al. 2010 find Scanso=
riopterygidae closer to Ornithothoraces than Archaeopteryx? How did
Zhou e= t al. 2009 get their novel [[Archaeopteryx [Sapeornis
[Jeholornis [Zhongjia= nornis [Confuciusornis + Ornithothoraces] ] ]
] ] topology? And so on...