We welcome the response by Ewers and Didham [1xHabitat fragmentation: panchreston or paradigm?. Ewers, R.M. and Didham, R.K. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007; 22: 511Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (8)See all References[1] to our recent paper on the ‘fragmentation panchreston’ [2xTackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fischer, J. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007; 22: 127–132Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (135)See all References[2], which eloquently emphasized the need for synthesis of many related processes. We welcome their comparison of ‘fragmentation’ to ‘biodiversity’, which highlights the potential heuristic value of the term, and we endorse their plea that the complex web of interrelated processes operating in modified landscapes needs to be examined in its entirety [3xHabitat fragmentation and landscape change. Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fischer, J. See all References[3].Our only disagreement with Ewers and Didham is whether the term ‘fragmentation’ is appropriate as an overall umbrella term for many complex and related processes. Because habitat fragmentation in its precise meaning is the sub-division of habitat [4xEffects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Fahrig, L. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003; 34: 487–515CrossrefSee all References[4], we should stick to this meaning instead of risking ‘double-booking’ the term for both a specific and a general meaning. As a general umbrella term, we feel that a term such as ‘human landscape modification’ is more accurate.Although terminology is important, it should not distract us from the overall goal on which we all agree – to assemble in constructive ways the puzzle of how to manage human-modified landscapes, using the pieces provided by different sub-disciplines. These landscapes are where the future of much of the world's terrestrial biodiversity will be decided.