In the article "Towards a systemic theory of gifted education", A. Ziegler and S. N. Phillipson present an interesting approach to gifted education. The actiotope model explains giftedness in light of systems theory where constant interchange occurs between the gifted person, his/her actions, and the environment in which he or she evolves. The approach is refreshing and sheds light on the complex and dynamic process of giftedness as opposed to linear approaches that consider either the individual alone or the environment by itself, but rarely the interaction of both. Without doubt, the approach is significant, but not entirely new, as Ziegler and Phillipson claim. The paradigm change that they are proposing does include some novelty, but this change is hardly "monumental" as stipulated by Ziegler and Phillipson. Perhaps the major drawback of the article is that despite its eloquence and use of grandiose terms (or perhaps because of it), Ziegler and Phillipson fail to relay a distinct message. That is, the reader has to make a great deal of effort to understand the gist of the matter. In other words, it is not clear how the actiotope model would be applied in real life, in real schools, and with real students. The proposed model is too theoretical; even when Ziegler and Phillipson try to explain how the model differs from current practice in its application the reader still fails to understand this difference. Another limitation of the article is that Ziegler and Phillipson have failed to explain how implementing the model would change the current state of gifted education. However, to say that the actiotope model is not entirely new is not the same as saying that it is devoid of value. On the contrary, the model is timely and addresses a dimension that has not been much emphasized in the past in gifted education, that is, the notion of constant change and modifiability, a sort of co-evolution necessary for survival and adaptation, replacing ineffective old actions with new effective ones. Some of the existing models of gifted education are indeed too old and no longer viable and should be replaced with more adaptive ones. The actiotope model is solid and is based on extensive research and a well-thought process. Perhaps the major strength of the article lies in Ziegler and Phillipson's attempt to demonstrate the importance of considering the dynamic, complex, and multidimensional aspects of giftedness and how these should be applied in the practice of gifted education. A sequel article in which Ziegler and Phillipson explain more clearly how the actiotope model constitutes a "monumental" change in the current paradigms of gifted education and how it translates into real life is warranted and would add value to the monumental effort Ziegler and Phillipson have put into constructing this model.