In the paper 'NO News', Preston et al. (2004) make a number of erroneous assumptions regarding nitrogen oxide chemistry. These authors also present some very significant misinterpretations of previous research into the effects of various nitrogen oxides on germination of post-fire followers. Methodological differences between the study by Preston et al. (2004) and previous work are also problematic, such as using NO-donors in solution versus the use of direct application of various nitrogen oxides in the gaseous phase. A closer review of these studies, with the proper understanding of nitrogen oxide chemistry, and interpretations of the available literature, would lead to the conclusion that, contrary to the authors' assertions, the Preston et al. (2004) study supports, rather than refutes, earlier findings by Keeley and Fotheringham (1997, 1998a, b, 2000). ?? CAB International 2005.