To study the patterns of neutral substitutions in the human genome, we have recently analyzed a large data set of alignments of orthologous noncoding DNA sequences from human, chimpanzee, and baboon (Meunier and Duret 2004). We observed that the base composition of the human genome is not at equilibrium: substitutions from G or C to A or T (hereafter referred to as GC fi AT substitutions) are more numerous than AT fi GC substitutions. Antezana (2005) has re-analyzed the genomic alignment data that we had compiled. In contradiction to our results, he found that the GC-content of the human genome is close to the equilibrium. The explanation he proposed for this discrepancy is that Meunier and Duret ''used a malfunctioning dinucleotide-level simulation procedure out of concern for contextdependent mutation effects.'' I show here that in fact, Antezana (2005) used an erroneous procedure to count substitutions that ignored the hypermutability of CpG dinucleotides, and therefore led to systematically overestimating the number of AT fi GC substitutions.Antezana (2005) used parsimony to count substitutions in alignments of orthologous human, chimpanzee, and baboon nongenic DNA sequences: substitutions to human or chimpanzee were retrieved from sites at which the baboon base and the base in one of the two nonbaboon sequences were identical but different from the base in the other nonbaboon sequence. It is well established that because of multiple substitutions, parsimony may be erroneous when patterns of substitutions are biased (EyreWalker 1998). It is also well known that in mammals, CpG dinucleotides are mutational hot spots: the rate of transition (C fi T or G fi A) at CpG sites is about 10 times higher than at non-CpG sites (Giannelli et al. 1999). Thus, although the average rate of divergence (excluding indels) between human and chimpanzee is 1.2%, the divergence at CpG sites is about 15.2% (CSAC 2005). Hence, as mentioned in our article (Meunier and Duret 2004), there is an important frequency of homoplasy at CpG sites, and therefore parsimony must be used with caution.To illustrate this problem of homoplasy at CpG sites, let us take a simple example, very similar to the real situation in our human/chimp/baboon alignments: two species (species1 and species2) and an outgroup, such that the evolutionary distance at nonCpG sites is 0.01 substitutions/site between species1 and species2 and 0.05 substitutions/site between the outgroup and the two other species (Fig. 1a), and the rate of substitution at CpG sites is 10 times higher than at non-CpG sites. Let us consider a site that corresponds to a T in species1, a C in species2, a T in the outgroup and that is followed by a C, conserved in the three species (Fig. 1b, c). The scenario proposed by the simple parsimony method predicts that the ancestral sequence was TC and that a single T fi C substitution occurred in the species2 lineage. The probability of that scenario is 5 · 10 )3 (Fig. 1b). The second most likely scenario involves two independent substitutions, and i...