Using historical data to infer temporal biotic changes is challenging (1). We are surprised that Moret et al. claim there is a “generalized misinterpretation” of Humboldt’s Tableau Physique des Andes et Pays Voisins as representing the vegetation of Chimborazo only. The >6-km elevation span of the figure, the title, and Humboldt’s descriptions, show the Tableau includes information from the surrounding Andes—a fact we highlighted in our publication’s abstract (2). We used data from the figure with 4 other sources of historical elevation ranges, considering in detail inconsistencies and uncertainties in Humboldt’s accounts. Sensitivity analyses across accounts supported the robustness of our conclusions on Chimborazo range shifts (2). Moret et al. claim lacking preserved specimens show that Humboldt did not collect plants … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: morueta-holme{at}snm.ku.dk. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1