We thank Bohonak et al. for the opportunity to expand upon our perspective of gene flow estimates[1xBossart, J.L. and Prowell, D.P. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998; 13: 202–206Abstract | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (375)See all References][1]. We are comfortable with our portrayal of the state of this field based on data from Evolution. Evolution was selected because it has a long history as a top journal focusing on empirically based population genetics, has a vast readership and high citation rates. Molecular Ecology, however, is a new, more specialized and less available journal.We agree that most indirect studies of gene flow report data for multiple loci and many use resampling techniques or regression to conduct sensitivity analyses. The issue is whether these are informative comparisons. For example, have estimates averaged over loci advanced our understanding of gene frequency evolution when estimates among loci vary, not uncommonly, by orders of magnitude[2xTempleton, A.R. Mol. Ecol. 1998; 7: 381–398CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (898)See all References][2]?Our perspective acknowledged problems associated with direct measures of dispersal. Like others[3xSlatkin, M. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1985; 16: 393–430CrossRefSee all References][3], however, we emphasized the essential information these estimates provide. Correlational approaches between Fst and life history traits to assess accuracy of genetic methods, as advocated by Bohonak et al., are statistically weak and confounded by evolutionary history—for example, higher Fst values in sessile versus vagile organisms may reflect vicariant events.Application of conventional indirect methods to address ecological questions is inappropriate for two reasons. First, there is no temporal reference point. Do data reveal processes operating over ten years, 100 years, 1000 years or 10 000 years? Second, Nm changes only trivially between Nm=2 and Nm=infinity, so Nm=2 is virtually indistinguishable from Nm=2000 (Ref. [2xTempleton, A.R. Mol. Ecol. 1998; 7: 381–398CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (898)See all References][2]). Thus, conventional approaches have insufficient power to address relative rates of gene flow among populations impinged upon by human activities, metapopulation dynamics, trophic interactions or relative magnitude of gene flow versus selection.Our overall conclusion that indirect methods `provide a useful starting point'[1xBossart, J.L. and Prowell, D.P. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998; 13: 202–206Abstract | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (375)See all References][1]was mirrored by Bohonak et al. in their statement that indirect methods `provide a valuable first approximation'. We part company, however, on the widespread use of new analytical models, as our review validated. As this changes, the field will advance.