The original purpose of comparative biology was to explain the phenotypes of living things around us. Today, studies of phylogenetic pattern are driven in part by funding priorities that reward large-scale analyses of arbitrarily chosen gene sequences. Of course, the patterns are of little interest if there are no data from natural history studies to make alternative topologies meaningful. On the other hand, researchers studying evolutionary process largely use an epistemology that relies on a few model organisms or systems. This fundamental narrowness of focus necessarily yields knowledge that is strictly limited in scope. Each of these approaches is incomplete. Systematists seem to be the people best positioned to revive studies of what used to be called "natural history." Both pattern and process studies will be improved by adding more comparative data, which is necessary if we are to fulfill the promise of explaining the world around us.