“…Then, comparative methods are applied to the dated tree, for aims such as estimating diversification rates, ancestral areas, community assembly processes, ancestral character states, and models of character evolution or some interaction between these, such as the effect of a trait on diversification. However, recent results suggest that many of these methods are underpowered, biased, and suffer from nonindependence in ways not easily fixable, which may affect significant proportions of studies using them [9][10][11][12].In general, as more groups approach phylogenetic completeness and stability, and comparative methods grow more complex, the era of molecular systematics as an end unto itself is ending. Now, I suggest we are entering an age of post-molecular systematics that will: (i) critically examine the utility and dimensionality of genomic data above and below the species level; (ii) reexamine the use of phylogenetic comparative methods in terms of scale and power; and (iii) place a renewed emphasis on total-evidence phylogenetics, including fossil species based on morphological data.…”