In this commentary on the "Multiple Meanings of Peer Groups in Social Cognitive Mapping," Thomas W. Farmer and Hongling Xie discuss core issues in the identification of peer social groups in natural settings using the social cognitive mapping (SCM) procedures. Farmer and Xie applaud the authors for their efforts to advance the study of social networks by considering alternative approaches for analyzing data generated from the SCM protocol. Neal and Neal have proposed possible new avenues for utilizing SCM to examine children's peer affiliations and social networks. However, their suggestions appear to be derived from logical analysis, and it is not clear that the utility of the proposed approaches has been adequately demonstrated in real-world examples or validated with rigorous empirical investigation. Further, the lack of a conceptual foundation significantly limits the scope and meaningfulness of their analyses and corresponding recommendations. Perhaps of greatest concern, the authors provide examples that misrepresent the use of the SCM program, and they attribute results to SCM that simply are not accurate. In sum, Farmer and Xie believe the collective limitations of the analyses put forth by Neal and Neal significantly constrain the relevance of their arguments, and Farmer and Xie caution that their recommendations could result in findings that do not provide a reliable account of children and youths' social networks in schools and other settings. Specific concerns are discussed herein. (Contains 1 table.)