For the past decade, the field of Bacteriorhodopsin (BR) research has been influenced by a kinetic view of the photocycle as a reversible, homogeneous, model (RHM) with a linear sequence of intermediates. More recently, we proposed a much different model which consists of essentially unidirectional, parallel (i.e., heterogeneous) cycles (UPM) (Hendler, R. W.; Shrager, R. I.; Bose, S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 33193328). It is important to try to resolve which of the two models is more likely to be correct, because models influence and provide a basis for further experimentation. Therefore, in this communication, we reexamine the basis for the RHM with a focus on the most recent and complete description of this model (van Stokkum, I., H., M.; Lozier, R. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 3477-3485) vis a vis the UPM in an in-depth study. We show that (i) the tested RHM does not really work for the data of van Stokkum and Lozier nor ours; (ii) no previously published RHM model has been shown to work for data under any conditions, (iii) there are many published observations that are difficult if not impossible to explain by RHM, but are readily explained by parallel cycles. It is also shown that either a UPM or a parallel cycle model with limited reversibility correctly describes photocycle data collected at pH 5, 7, and 9 and at 10, 20, and 30 degrees and is consistent with all known experimental observations.