WE AGREE WITH Kuemmerle et al. that the forests in the Gran Chaco region are under massive threat, underprotected, and deserving of greater attention from scientists and conservationists. We could have included the Chaco woodlands in our analyses, and their distinctive flora would have reinforced our conclusions of high floristic turnover among neotropical dry forests. However, level of threat and the label of "dry forest," a term that has been notoriously loosely used across the neotropics (1–3), were not the criteria used in selecting sites for our study. Rather, we focused on sites in the neotropical dry forest biome as defined based on climatic, soil, hydrologic, physiognomic, and floristic characteristics (4, 5). Based on these criteria, it is more biologically meaningful and relevant for conservation purposes to consider the Chaco woodlands as a distinct biome (6, 7)—essentially a separate evolutionary metacommunity (4, 5, 8).