Kuhn et al.¹ write that in our recent Nature Ecology & Evolution publication², we overlook Brazilian legislation that considers fossils as mineral or natural heritage in favour of legislation that considers fossils to be cultural heritage, and that fossils are more appropriately considered as mineral heritage. Given the constraints of format, we emphasize that the information in our Comment on Brazilian legislation was illustrative rather than exhaustive (a necessary condition given the complexity of Brazilian law on the subject of fossils). The laws that we discussed and presented in figure 1 of ref. ² are those that are most important and that have served as the basis for decision-making regarding repatriations (especially with Brazilian and foreign ministries). Furthermore, the laws presented in figure 1 of ref. ² do in fact cover laws on natural (=mineral) heritage (laws of 1942, 1990, 2000 and 2016), as well as cultural heritage (laws of 1973 and 1988) and environmental protection (law of 1998). Thus, we disagree that we have presented a biased portrayal of fossils under Brazilian law.

We also disagree with the idea that laws related to mineral and cultural heritage are conflicting.

库恩等人。¹写道，在我们最近的《自然生态与进化》出版物²中，我们忽略了将化石视为矿物或自然遗产的巴西立法，而支持将化石视为文化遗产的立法，并且将化石视为矿物遗产更合适。鉴于格式的限制，我们强调，我们对巴西立法的评论中的信息是说明性的，而不是详尽的（考虑到巴西关于化石问题的法律的复杂性，这是一个必要条件）。我们在参考文献图 1 中讨论和介绍的定律。²是最重要的，并且已成为遣返决策的基础（特别是巴西和外交部）。此外，参考文献图 1 中提出的定律。²实际上涵盖了有关自然（=矿产）遗产的法律（1942 年、1990 年、2000 年和 2016 年的法律）以及文化遗产（1973 年和 1988 年的法律）和环境保护（1998 年的法律）。因此，我们不同意我们根据巴西法律对化石进行了有偏见的描述。

我们也不同意有关矿物和文化遗产的法律相互冲突的观点。