The problem is exacerbated by the dating issue. "Eufalconimorphae" are not entirely unreasonable, but Cretaceous? What about Halcyornithidae (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2010.505252 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2010.513703)? Close enough to a "missing link" somewhere near the base of Eufalconimorphae, but alive and kicking after 50 Ma including a mega-extinction and near-complete ecological turnover (and carnivorous to boot?) and still very much *looking* like the misssing link you'd expect? It works too well in some aspects, and it completely sucks in others. Those parts of the tree we *have* resolved for good fit together more or less awkwardly, but overall in a satisfying way.
IMNSHO, the "dating" is bunk; fortunately, it's tacked on to the end of the study, not an integral part of it, so it can be disregarded without casting doubt on the other results.
Indeed, as I've already mentioned, I think the phylogenetic tree they got is itself evidence for much younger dates. That huge unresolved Neoaves radiation which shows evidence of incomplete lineage sorting (contradictory distributions of retroposons)? That looks like it happend very, very quickly. The only time at which I can imagine such a thing happening is in the empty world after the K-Pg boundary mass extinction.
Thanks a lot for the links. Evidently, somebody has now persuaded the university library of Vienna to use some of its nonexistent funds to buy the 2nd-ranked journal in paleontology (impact factor of 2010: 3.844 -- the JVP had 2.241 and is the 8th-ranked journal in paleontology). Excuse me while I go on a downloading spree that will probably take all week. <bliss>