For some time now the term ‘the matter of nature’ has held sway over geographical imaginations and practical work. Fitzsimmons’ (1989) timely call to nature has had human geographers running for the hills (and rivers, genomes, animals, and so on). What Fitzsimmons anticipated was that the matter of nature was no easy matter at all. Indeed, and above all, nature does not and cannot easily be located, described or used. It is not self-evident. Matters of nature are not matters of fact, or indisputable realities (Latour, 2004b) that can somehow ground geography, or secure political agreement. Just as the ‘what’ of nature remains something of an open question, it follows too that there is no obvious answer to the ‘where’ of nature. ...