In their Comment published in Nature Ecology & Evolution concerning the part that scientific societies can play in the repatriation of fossils, Araújo-Júnior et al.¹ did not consider the complete set of laws that govern fossils in Brazil. This gives the impression that Brazilian law predominantly considers fossils as cultural heritage. In fact, Brazilian legislation is conflicted on issues related to the identification, protection and management of palaeontological heritage. In different Brazilian laws (Table 1), fossils are variously considered as (1) a mineral resource, used for the production of cement, fertilizers, ornamental rocks and so on; (2) an educational resource in accordance with Law No. 13.575/2017, article 2, item XIII, when intended for museums and research institutions; and (3) cultural heritage, where recognized by the responsible body, the National Historical and Artistic Heritage Institute (IPHAN)^2,3.

Just as not all urban complexes or sites of ecological value are cultural heritage, not every fossil or palaeontological site can be considered cultural heritage. To date, IPHAN has recognized only the ‘Fossil Forest’ on the Potim River (1510/2003) as cultural heritage⁴. The fact that the recognition of palaeontological sites as cultural heritage by IPHAN is rare reinforces the conclusion that, on the whole, Brazil currently considers fossils to be mineral heritage^2,3,5. As such, the National Mining Agency (ANM) is the body that is responsible for authorizing and managing research that involves fossils.

Araújo-Júnior 等人在《自然生态学与进化》杂志上发表的评论中谈到了科学协会在化石归还方面可以发挥的作用。¹没有考虑管理巴西化石的全套法律。这给人的印象是巴西法律主要将化石视为文化遗产。事实上，巴西立法在古生物遗产的识别、保护和管理相关问题上存在冲突。在不同的巴西法律中（表1），化石被不同地视为（1）矿产资源，用于生产水泥、化肥、观赏石等； (2) 根据第 13.575/2017 号法律第 2 条第 XIII 项规定，供博物馆和研究机构使用的教育资源； (3) 文化遗产，由负责机构国家历史和艺术遗产研究所 (IPHAN) 认可^2,3。

正如并非所有城市综合体或具有生态价值的遗址都是文化遗产一样，并非所有化石或古生物遗址都可以被视为文化遗产。迄今为止，IPHAN 仅将波廷河上的“化石森林”（1510/2003 年）认定为文化遗产⁴。 IPHAN 将古生物遗址认定为文化遗产的情况很少见，这一事实强化了这样的结论：总体而言，巴西目前将化石视为矿物遗产^2,3,5。因此，国家矿业局 (ANM) 是负责授权和管理涉及化石的研究的机构。