To test the molecular dating results and biogeographic in-terpretations reported by Conti et al. (2002), R. G. Moyle reanalyzed our published dataset of 13 rbcL sequences rep-resenting Melastomataceae and five small taxa: the Southeast Asian Crypteroniaceae (the C clade) and their western Gond-wanan sister clade, formed by the South American Alzatea and the African Rhynchocalyx, Oliniaceae, and Penaeaceae (the AROP clade). Using a single calibration point and non-parametric rate smoothing (NPRS; Sanderson 2003), Moyle (2004) estimated an age of 68 million years ago (mya; 10.6 mya) for the split between Crypteroniaceae and the AROP clade, which contrasts with our published age of 116 mya (24 mya), obtained with fossil calibration and pe-nalized likelihood (PL; Sanderson 2003), and an age range of 50 to 151 mya, obtained by using three different calibration points and three different dating methods. Moyle (2004) con-cludes that his estimated age for the origin of the Crypter-oniaceae stem lineage is ''not congruent with a strict Gond-wanan vicariance hypothesis for the distribution of Crypter-oniaceae and nearest relatives'' and that the differences in calibration ''explain most of the differences in results.'' Although Moyle's comment is timely by focusing on one of the most problematic issues in molecular dating analyses— namely, calibration—we would like to highlight some weak-nesses in his chosen analytical procedure, along with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations of our original article. At the same time, we offer some general reflections on the controversial issue of calibration in molecular dating anal-yses. The criticism posed by Moyle that is most readily ad-dressed concerns the phylogenetic placement of the South American Alzatea. Moyle's (2004) maximum likelihood (ML) analyses supported the placement of the South Amer-ican Alzatea within the African clade, rather than as sister to the African clade as reported in Conti et al. (2002). He pro-posed that this discrepancy may be explained by the use of different models of nucleotide substitution in the two anal-yses, adding that low statistical support for the position of Alzatea suggests that its relationships remain unresolved. However, we would like to note that Moyle used outgroups (Hauya, Onagraceae and Quisqualis, Combretaceae) that are phylogenetically more distant from the CAROP/Melasto-mataceae clade than the outgroup we used (Heteropyxis, rep-resenting the sister clade of the CAROP/Melastomataceae clade; see Conti et al. 1996). After rerunning ML analyses with different combinations of outgroups and substitution models, we have concluded that instability in the position of Alzatea is caused primarily by different outgroup choices. A second point of disagreement concerns the properties and inferential value of the estimated age ranges. Moyle (2004) states: ''Because of the wide range of age estimates produced by the different calibration points and molecular dating procedures, I re-examined the biogeographic history of Crypteroniaceae with particular attention to calibration procedure.'' He then elaborates on results based on a single dating method (NPRS) and a single calibration point (an age of 23 mya assigned to node E). This methodological approach will tend to provide a narrower range of estimated ages than would be obtained by using a number of different methods, but such a superficially precise result may not be indicative of increased accuracy. Indeed, from a strictly analytical per-spective, the choice of NPRS as the single dating method is questionable, since NPRS tends to overfit the data, especially when rates of molecular evolution change abruptly (Sander-son 2002). A more critical issue, however, is the way in which fossils are used to calibrate trees. Moyle used a single calibration point based on seeds that are dated at 23–26 mya and char-acterized by the large testa tubercles arranged in rows. These seeds have been assigned confidently to Melastomeae, which were monophyletic in recent analyses (Renner et al. 2001; Renner and Meyer 2001; see also Collinson and Pingen 1992). Yet, most likely due to scarce sampling, the three representatives of Melastomeae (Tibouchina, Osbeckia, and Rhexia) included in our rbcL analysis did not form a mono-phyletic group, but were members of a clade that also in-cluded Medinilla from the Dissochaeteae/Sonerileae (Conti et al. 2002, fig. 3). It was for this reason that we refrained from using this fossil as a calibration point. Moyle (see his fig. 1), in contrast, used the age of 23 mya to constrain node E, which subtends a clade formed by members of Melasto-meae and Dissochaeteae/Sonerileae. Since node E necessarily predates the origin of the Melastomeae, to which the fossil seeds may be assigned (see also Renner et al. 2001, fig. 1; Renner and Meyer 2001, fig. 3), Moyle's improper calibration procedure automatically produces an underestimation of all nodal ages. A further source of disagreement between Moyle's and our analyses concerns the nodal assignment of fossil leaves (dat-ed at 53 mya) that are characterized by acrodromous venation, a synapomorphy exclusive for Melastomataceae among the sampled taxa (Renner et al. 2001). Moyle criticizes our de-cision to use these fossil leaves to constrain the base of the Melastomataceae crown group (corresponding to node E in his fig. 1), instead of the base of its stem lineage (corre-sponding to node D in his fig. 1). Although we agree with