Whilst in general welcoming the call to rethink the need for canons in human geography offered by Keighren et al. (2012), this paper suggests the need for a more nuanced argument in several respects. Physical geographers need to be brought on board and more clarity is required about the relationship between ‘canons’ and ‘classics’. Above all, the claim that geography is unusual in its historical superficiality and indifference to its earlier generations needs qualification. Only then can the call for canons in geography to create historical depth to our understanding and to aid in disciplinary identity formation, which the authors champion, prove successful.
