More Independent Evolution
If these other genera are so closely related, then why do they not also have ocelli? With evolution we must say that they had the eye-spot feathers but later lost them for some reason, over the course of evolution. Or that the eye-spot feathers evolved independently in the different genera that have them. Either way these are just-so stories, manufactured to fit the theory. As the new study concludes:
The close relationship between taxa with and without ocelli suggests multiple gains or losses. Independent gains, possibly reflecting a pre-existing bias for eye-like structures among females and/or the existence of a simple mutational pathway for the origin of ocelli, appears to be the most likely explanation
This is yet another evidence, in a long, long list, which demonstrates that evolution is not a simple, parsimonious explanation that, in a stroke, easily explains a set of disparate and otherwise unlikely or confusing observations.
Rather, evolution is a complex theory with a never-ending list of epicycles that are needed to explain a wide variety of evidences that are inconsistent with the basic theory. This makes evolution a tautology.