Citing antichronistic works -- worth commenting that the publication order is counter intuitive? In my related works section of the paper I am writing,
there are two papers by roughly the same group of authors.
Paper A (2015), and Paper B (2014).

Paper B (2014) is based on Paper A (2015), and cites it as a unpublished work.
But for some reason or another Paper B was published first.
(Possibly because Paper A was a more significant work, so was targetted at a better venue with a longer review time, whereas paper B was a relatively minor extension published as a relatively unknown workshop.)

I'm only briefly discussing them in my related literature section.
Do I need to call attention to the fact that Paper B is based on Paper A, even though the dates don't line up.

I currently have something like:


  Paper A (2015) prepared the dataset using methods Foo.
  This dataset was uses in the evaluation of the models of Paper A (2015) and Paper B (2014) which were based on the principle of Bar.
  Paper B (2014) extends Paper A (2015) by adding support for Buzz.
The relation between paper A and B seems like an unnecessary detail. As you imply they are both about the same project. Keep it concise.

White et al used Bar and Buzz in [A,B] to analyze a dataset using methods Foo.

[Then go on to say why this is important and relates to your own research]