English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a recent paper, we applied time series analysis methods to study thepossible influence of the solar motion through the Galaxy on terrestrialextinction (Feng & Bailer-Jones 2013). We drew conclusions about the relativeprobabilities of how well different models explain the geological extinctionrecord. We found no strong evidence for either a periodicity in the extinctionrecord or for a link between the solar orbit and this extinction record. Inresponse to this, Melott & Bambach (2013) dedicate the majority of theirarticle to criticizing our analysis. Their main objection is to evidence-basedmodel comparison. Here we deal with their criticisms one by one, and show thatthey are largely misplaced, leaving our conclusions unaffected. The bottom lineis that although one can get a periodic model at some period to fit theextinction data, there are other models which explain the data better.

Evidence for periodicities in the extinction record? Response to Melott & Bambach [arXiv:1307.1884]