Metapopulation theory (summarized by Hanski 1999) is one of the most influential developments in ecology of recent decades, for example as a cornerstone of conservation biology, and as a theoretical basis for studies of dispersal and of the distribution and abundance of species. A synthesis of metapopulation theory and landscape ecology has been regarded as a key to analyses of the ecological consequences of ongoing landscape changes (Wiens 1997). Although successfully applied to many regional systems of animal populations, the usefulness of metapopulation theory for studies of plants is still open to debate. As Husband & Barrett (1996) and Eriksson (1996) concluded, rather few studies have documented metapopulations in plants, and the same holds for other forms of regional dynamics, e.g. source-sink populations and remnant populations. In a recent paper, Freckleton & Watkinson (2002) have critically reviewed studies of plant metapopulations, with the objectives of assessing whether regional populations of plants really are metapopulations, and suggesting a new typology for different forms of plant regional dynamics. Freckleton & Watkinson stress, and we agree, that these issues are not merely semantic. The concepts of regional dynamics not only determine the ways in which empirical studies are performed, but also influence the interpretation of data (illustrated by Freckleton & Watkinson with studies claiming, but not showing, the existence of metapopulations) and the modelling of spatial dynamics of plant populations. Freckleton & Watkinson (2002) begin by listing four criteria that must be fulfilled in order to regard a regional population as a metapopulation: (i) suitable habitat occurs as discrete patches that may be occupied or unoccupied; (ii) all local populations have a measurable extinction risk; (iii) habitat patches are interconnected by dispersal, allowing the possibility of re-colonization; and (iv) local populations are not completely synchronized in their dynamics. If these criteria are met, regional dynamics cannot be inferred from local processes, and local dynamics cannot be understood without referring to regional patterns or processes. Freckleton & Watkinson (2002) conclude that, given these criteria, very few cases exist where plant metapopulations have been documented. Indeed, there are a number of reasons why plants may not develop metapopulations in the same way as short-lived mobile animals. The existence of long-lived life cycle stages (e.g. seeds or vegetative ramets) means that a local population may persist for a long time even though the patch has become unsuitable. Successful dispersal and recruitment may be very sporadic, and therefore recolonization is unlikely after local population extinction. Dispersal over long distances may be governed by chance events. The definition of 'long distance' may differ between species, but in many cases it may be no more than a few hundred metres (Cain et al. 2000). Suitable habitat is difficult to define, and suitability is likely to be a continuous function of abiotic and biotic environmental factors. Freckleton & Watkinson propose that, using a metapopulation concept for describing regional populations, many plant regional populations would be described as non-equilibrium metapopulations, a conclusion we also reached for plants in fragmented habitats (Eriksson & Ehrl~n 2001). We agree with Freckleton & Watkinson (2002) that it is difficult to assess whether plants in general fulfil the criteria for metapopulations. However, we disagree with their suggestions on a new typology for regional dynamics. We also believe that their conclusions concerning the difficulties in documenting metapopulations in plants may be interpreted as indicating that local processes are sufficient for understanding regional patterns of plant populations, although we acknowledge that this may not have been their intention. We have three objectives here: (i) to comment on the typology of regional dynamics suggested by Freckleton & Watkinson (2002); (ii) to suggest how regional processes might be of importance to plant distributions irrespective of whether plants have metapopulations; and (iii) to argue that metapopulation theory should be developed further as a tool for studies of plants, rather than being replaced by other concepts.