You should have come!

and my perspective piece on this: www.nature.com/articles/s41...

We suggest this is inherent to the very distinct nature of these datatypes and the way they are collected, and we provide a conceptual framework from what can be concluded by evolutionary rates studies using each datatype.

Lack of comparability across existing methods makes definite conclusions more limited than what we wanted, but the biggest difference in our comparisons is always across datatypes.

We included discrete (phylogenetic characters) and continuous data (from 2D GMM) from the exact same species and, in most cases, from the exact same specimens. That was a lot of work…

We tried to assess whether rates of phenotypic evolution based on multivariate data (discrete and continuous), using popular methods, and which influence how we measure phenotypic change and innovation across lineages provide comparable results. The answer is a very big NO.