Conventional carcinogenic potency estimates for chemicals have been compared across rodent species. The high correlations previously demonstrated between maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) for chemicals identified as positive carcinogens in both rats and mice (r = 0.83, n = 83) are shown to occur also for chemicals that were negative in both species (r = 0.85, n = 51), for chemicals causing tumors in rats but not mice (r = 0.55, n = 15), and for those causing tumors in mice but not rats (r = 0.68, n = 25). Corresponding upper-bound estimates of carcinogenic potency are also highly correlated across rodent species. The correlations arise from (i) the strong interspecies correlation between maximum doses tested in chronic bioassays, (ii) the small group sizes utilized, and (iii) the narrow range of doses typically tested. These factors constrain conventional ML and upper-bound potency estimates to lie very close to the inverse maximum doses tested, irrespective of the bioassay's qualitative outcomes. The potency estimates are thus artifacts of experimental design and would seem to provide little information on the actual human cancer risks from chemical exposure. Risk assessment models can reveal true potency differences across species, but they must incorporate relevant mechanistic information before quantitative risk extrapolation from rodents to humans is scientifically defensible.