Palaeo After Dark rarely starts with science. Kurt, Amanda and James usually begin wherever the week has left them. One of them describes a dream in which a book about ports and ships was somehow by James Gurney, the Dinotopia artist. One of them also tells of a delivery van that chanted 'good, good, good' in a calm voice, like the midwife droid from Revenge of the Sith, and suggests electric cars should make the same noise. There is nail polish that lasted a week without chipping, a hood cut from dinosaur fabric, and an orange cat who spent an hour shut in the basement and keeps coming back up in conversation. When a paper finally arrives, the looseness goes straight into the argument. On Charnia, they put the fossil beside its reconstructions and point out a plug the rock does not show. They credit a biomechanical study of how an animal might have jumped for laying out a range of plausible behaviours and for claiming no more than its evidence allows. A tail-reconstruction approach gets a harder time. The data is thin and a lot rests on convergent evolution, so they call the split partly philosophical. A claim of preserved skin layers gets a divided verdict: the layering is convincing, the cell nuclei less so. There is also a detour when stratum corneum is briefly mistaken for a sedimentary term. Light-sensing organs lead them to scorpions that fluoresce under UV, moon phases, diapause and homeobox genes shared across animals. The humour works as a tool, not a break. One photo, with the jaws placed right over the head so the teeth throw shadows on the skull, earns the remark that its authors know how to sell a paper. The episode titled 'Podcast 327 - Horse or Deer?' closes by sorting household appliances into horses and deer, and the dryer is ruled a horse. Journals take a kicking, which one of them compares to an old man yelling at a cloud. One episode includes a short appeal from James on behalf of PRI, an institution he praises for its collections, its science advocacy and its outreach to educators. The language is frank and at times profane. What a listener gets is a close look at how a published claim holds up when it is checked against the fossil, against the data, and against three people who do not always agree.