Wolpoff's (1984) recent discussion of evolutionary rates in Homo erectus deserves careful study. Whether Homo erectus or other hominid species exhibit gradual, continuous change in key characters or whether instead there is evidence for morphological stasis in the fossil record is an important question. By allocating all Homo erectus specimens to three groups of early, intermediate, and later geological age and by comparing group means for 13 measurements, Wolpoff attempts to show that gradualism is the rule for this mid-Pleistocene taxon. This method is straightforward, but it is crucial that the samples be composed in a manner which is biologically reasonable. I argue here that Wolpoff has not done this. While there may be legitimate doubt concerning sorting of the fossils, especially where specimens are incomplete, several of the individuals said to be representative of Homo erectus are simply inappropriate for use in this analysis. Wolpoff insists that he has employed a “conservative” definition of the species, but instead he has measured everything in sight. This approach to the record does influence his results.