 Recently, Veigl, Suarez, and Stencel (2022) have extended Griesemer’s reproducer. In lieu of “reproducer”, they propose the notion of the “reconstitutor”, which is a structure that is “re-produced” at every generation irrespectively of the causal origin of the reconstruction. While, as presented above, the idea that material overlap is a necessary condition for an entity to be a reproducer and, consequently, to be an entity involved in a process of evolution by natural selection seems overly restrictive, the notion proposed by Veigl et al. appears overly liberal for at least two reasons. First, without looking for the causal connections between entities involved in evolution by natural selection across generations, that is, what is transmitted, predicting an evolutionary trajectory at the level of these entities would be difficult. Second, the idea of the reconstitutor erases an important distinction made in evolutionary theory between two forms of evolution: namely, transformational and variational evolution (see Lewontin 1983). These two forms of evolution are exemplified by change due to mutation and changes due to selection, respectively. The distinction between mutation and selection, along with drift, is at the heart of population genetics and general formulations of evolutionary theory such as the Price equation (e.g., Frank 2012, who emphasize the distinction between “selection” and “transmission” as two important and distinct evolutionary processes). To adopt the reconstitutor as a fundamental evolutionary entity would require extremely strong arguments against the view that mutation and selection described at one level are fundamentally different evolutionary processes or, at the very least, clear advantages for the notion of the reconstitutor over the reproducer.