Each year, fire and flood cause enormous damage to human infrastructure globally. Over the last one hundred years, flooding is second only to drought in the cause of death from natural disasters, with fire a distant seventh (after earthquakes, storms, volcanic eruptions, heat and cold). Because of their destructive nature, fire and flood receive enormous press coverage, and there are tens of thousands of scientific articles devoted mostly to risk and risk management of these natural disasters. Fire and flood regimes – including return frequency, extent and magnitude – are predicted to be affected by climate change. Apart from the understandable emphasis of the broader community on their destructive features, fire and flood have long been recognised as being fundamental to the functioning of ecosystems. Indeed, fire and flood are two of the most influential natural disturbances in the landscape and are major drivers of floral and faunal patterns and processes, shaping the evolution of biota. But despite the similarity in ecological role, there are substantial differences in how fire and flood are formally treated and framed in the scientific research community. ‘Fire ecology’ is a thing, as a quick database search for books, journals and articles, shows. But ‘flood ecology’ is not. Why isn’t ‘flood ecology’ a thing…and should it be? The aims of this talk are: 1) to remind us of the importance of flood and flooding to river ecosystems; 2) compare the framing of ‘flood ecology’ and ‘fire ecology’ in the scientific community; and 3) to ask if ‘flood ecology’ is not a thing, how does this affect scientific and community perceptions of flooding, the focus of research and ultimately progress in our understanding?