  The software program BAMM has been widely used to study the dynamics of
speciation, extinction, and phenotypic evolution on phylogenetic trees. The
program implements a model-based clustering algorithm to identify clades that
share common macroevolutionary rate dynamics and to estimate rate parameters. A
recent simulation study published in Evolution (2017) by Meyer and Wiens (M&W)
claimed that (i) simple ("MS") estimators of diversification rates perform much
better than BAMM, and (ii) evolutionary rates inferred with BAMM are weakly
correlated with the true rates in the generating model. I demonstrate that
their assessment suffers from two major conceptual errors that invalidate both
primary conclusions. These statistical considerations are not specific to BAMM
and apply to all methods for estimating parameters from empirical data where
the true grouping structure of the data is unknown. First, M&W\'s comparisons
between BAMM and MS estimators suffer from false equivalency because the MS
estimators are given perfect prior knowledge of the locations of rate shifts on
the simulated phylogenies. BAMM is given no such information and must
simultaneously estimate the number and location of rate shifts from the data,
thus resulting in a massive degrees-of-freedom advantage for the MS
estimators.When both methods are given equivalent information, BAMM
dramatically outperforms the MS estimators. Second, M&W\'s experimental design
is unable to assess parameter reliability because their analyses conflate small
effect sizes across treatment groups with error in parameter estimates. Nearly
all model-based frameworks for partitioning data are susceptible to the
statistical mistakes in M&W, including popular clustering algorithms in
population genetics, phylogenetics, and comparative methods.
