<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lieberman, P</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Language did not spring forth 100,000 years ago</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PLoS Biol</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">02/2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4332681/</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">e1002064</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In response to an Essay by Johan Bolhuis and co-authors, Phillip Lieberman contends that rather than arising from a key recent innovation (&quot;merge&quot;), language arose by gradual evolution of ancient capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><accession-num><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25679377</style></accession-num><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;PLoS Biol 2015 Feb. 13:e1002064. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002064&lt;/p&gt;
</style></notes></record></records></xml>