I will probably make an ineffectual mess out of explaining my distaste for Jared diamond, but oh well I had to go and put the statement out there----Diamond in an attempt to duplicate the success of S. J. Gould stretched his science into areas for which he has no knowledge--that's the easiest way, as a scientist, to dislike his work. Intelligent people read his work and think they understand the phenomena at hand, however because he himself is walking in sand, the stretch is often so off as to be entirely incorrect except in the most superficial manner. Even though Gould would get way out there, he always extended his 'science to the masses' in fields that he was either actively studying, or areas he already had extensive knowledge in. Gould was poo-pooed by biologists and paleontologists alike, largely because of his overwhelming ego---I worked around him for a year, and that is all true, there is also a fair bit of envy there also- I should say that Diamonds' earlier work island population dynamics is spot on, and often fundamental reading for the first and second year evolutionary biologist. > >For those not keeping score, Bellesiles is a discredited historian of >gun issues in early America - sort of the left-wing version of John Lott. > >This is the first I'd heard of non-ideological disagreements with Diamond >- is there something peer-reviewed I could check out? > >ps - "Echeverri" has a cool linguistic story, right? - maybe Basque?