Conclusions
We support the goals of Millette et al. (2020) and recognize that some of the flaws outlined are not unique to their study, although their temporal focus presents novel issues. Combined, these constraints increase the risk of overinterpretation of macro-genetic studies’ conclusions (e.g. no or no consistent anthropogenically-driven IGD changes), which could misinform important conservation policy decisions. Macro-geneticists must not continue to merely acknowledge such limitations and carry on with their studies regardless, especially when meta-analyses using appropriate molecular markers consistently show anthropogenically-driven changes in IGD (e.g. due to harvest, habitat loss and fragmentation; Aguilar et al. 2008; Pinsky and Palumbi, 2014; Schlaepfer et al. 2019; González et al. 2020). Macro-geneticists must accurately study variables of interest by using the most appropriate data rather than the most abundant data.