Humphrey and Parkes (1959) developed a molt and plumage nomenclature (the “H-P” system) based on the evolution of prebasic molts in birds from ecdysis events in reptiles, followed by later evolution of inserted molts responding to lineage-specific constraints and adaptations in Aves. Pyle (2005) revised H-P molt and plumage terminology of ducks by tracing the evolution of their molts from geese, whereas Hawkins (2011) defended traditional molt and plumage terminologies that defined molts relative to present-day breeding seasonality, ensuing plumage coloration, and other proximal factors. Apart from misinterpreting H-P's evolutionary approach, Hawkins (2011) confused the first-cycle terms of H-P, Howell et al. (2003), and Pyle (2005), and presented no new data or ideas to support traditional molt terminology in ducks. It is unlikely that inserted molts evolved in ancestral taxa based on yet-to-occur adaptations involving plumage color, and it is inconsistent to define homologous molts based on similar ensuing feather coloration while disregarding the substantially different coloration of homologous plumages within many avian lineages. Here the terminology of Pyle (2005) is defended, an alternative interpretation for the initial evolution of two (rather than one) inserted molts in the definitive cycles of female and male ducks is elaborated upon, and the future application of metabolic signatures to trace homologous molts in ducks and other bird lineages is suggested. Prebasic molts in ducks and other birds likely evolved from whole-scale restorative events common to all vertebrates, whereas distinguishable and less-comprehensive endocrinological and metabolic processes may accompany inserted molts.