Abstract: There is little doubt that the species most at risk of extinction from rapid climate change are short-range endemics facing insurmountable dispersal barriers to potentially suitable alternative regions. Thomas (2011) proposes that the only hope of avoiding extinction for these species is to undertake planned translocations. He argues that the benefits of translocation will outweigh the associated risks where translocations take place within the same broad geographic area and where the recipient areas lack local endemics (Thomas, 2011). While we agree that translocation of threatened species has a place in climate change adaptation, we disagree that translocating short-range endemics to endemism ‘cold-spots’ beyond their projected future ‘native’ range (Webber & Scott 2011) is a viable low-risk strategy for conservation management; such translocations are nothing short of planned invasions Ricciardi & Simberloff (2009). We are compelled to point out that society is still paying the price for our 19^th century adventure with planned invasions, in which Acclimatization Societies attempted to make far-flung regions of the British Empire resemble a British wildlife park. We believe that it is essential to avoid the implementation of ad hoc translocation schemes to the most expedient locations. Instead, the breakdown of the traditional ‘pre-climate change’ conceptualisation of static native range boundaries (Marris, 2011) demands that we reformulate a sound ecological framework to understand and predict future ranges, as well as the potential for translocations into these areas. We believe that an appropriate framework is to consider translocations only where a species is, or could be, considered native as defined by their ‘projected dispersal envelope’, which places a spatiotemporal context on reasonable species movements (Webber & Scott, 2011). [Bruce L. Webber, John K. Scott and Raphael K. Didham (2011). Trends in Ecology & Evolution, on-line 19 July, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.007]