Abstract
Last year, we published research using phylogenetic comparative methods (PCMs) to reveal no phylogenetic evidence for elevated lineage-level extinction rates in angiosperms across K-Pg (Thompson JB, Ramírez-Barahona S. 2023 No phylogenetic evidence for angiosperm mass extinction at the Cretaceous-Palaeogene (K-Pg) boundary. Biol. Lett. 19, 20230314. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2023.0314)), results that are in step with the global angiosperm fossil record. In a critique of our paper (Hagen ER. 2024 A critique of Thompson and Ramírez-Barahona (2023) or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the fossil record. EcoEvoRxiv. (doi:10.32942/X2631W)), simulation work is presented to argue we erred in our methodological choices and interpretations, and that we should have deferred to fossil evidence. In our opinion, underlying this critique are poor methodological choices on simulations and philosophical problems surrounding the definition of a mass extinction event, which leads to incorrect interpretations of both the fossil record and PCMs. We further argue that deferring to one source of evidence in favour of the other shuts the door to important evolutionary and philosophical questions.