Some scientists believe that rather than impact craters, large asteroid strikes could actually cause volcanic events. This could explain why the number of obvious impact craters is fewer than would be expected, given our current understanding of frequency of hits.

I don't think this theory is exactly "news." I remember reading speculation a few years ago that the Hawaiian Islands were the result of an meteor impact into an especially thin region of the Earth's crust. The entire Hawaiian chain (including now-submerged islands north of Ni'ihau and Lohi, which will emerge from the sea south of the Big Island in another few thousand years) were created (and are being created) by a single volcanic eruption that's been going on for millions of years. The "hot spot" now centered under the Big Island has remained fixed, but the ocean plates have moved north, leaving Maui and the Big Island as the only two islands with active volcanoes.

That is a plausible explanation both for the Hawaiian chain and the apparent dearth of crater evidence. Another is that the predicted frequency of impacts may be off by just a touch, but I imagine they're taking that possibility into account too.

Great catch, Rand! I think the dating of the events, as noted in the article, is not yet precise enough to confirm a connection, but this may improve with time. It is also my understanding that some major eruptions, including the Deccan Traps, may have been antipodal to large impacts.

And at the same time, there's a competing theory that holds that many hot spots have nothing to do with the mantle-- Theories on park challenged. As for the volcanoes caused by meteors theory, as previous poster said, they are nothing new. I don't have the reference at hand, but supposedly some ancient craters correspond to the western end of the Snake River plain, another hotspot track that ends at Yellowstone's caldera.