By invoking published literature, Clement et al. attempted to undermine our study that challenged conventional perspectives on the origin and domestication of cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum) and its relationship to cupuí (T. subincanum). They claimed we ignored long-term research in taxonomy, history, biogeography, and genetics, yet neglected our recent and ongoing efforts in most of these areas. They questioned the validity of our genomic analyses, but their critique was devoid of empirical evidence or additional data to support any of their claims, instead presenting irregular reasoning based on fundamental errors. Furthermore, they relied on outdated sources when discussing Theobroma taxonomy which may sound ultracrepidarian when addressing species delimitations. When Clement et al. presented linguistic arguments, their interpretation was also, in our perspective, speculative and could be viewed from a different angle, as we will argue in this piece.