We provide comments and suggestions on the first eight “significant challenges” for zoological nomenclature listed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 2024. In particular, we express disagreements regarding six of them, dealing with the term parataxon and related ones, the concept of hemihomonymy, the term polynomen, the Principle of Zoological Independence, differentiation of zoological nomenclature and the pronounciation of nomina. This analysis allows to survey and discuss several basic concepts and terms of zoological nomenclature.

Three nomenclatural problems with the spinorays (Apolithabatiformes) are addressed here. The priority of the family name Asterodermidae Bonaparte, 1850 over Spathobatidae Dames, 1888 is demonstrated. The authorships of the generic names Asterodermus Agassiz, 1836, Spathobatis Thiollière, 1848 and Belemnobatis Thiollière, 1852 are clarified. The spellings of the specific names S. bugesiacus Thiollière, 1848, S. morinicus Sauvage, 1873 and S. rugosus Underwood et al., 1999 are emended to S. bugesiaca, S. morinica and S. rugosa, respectively.

This book of 261 pages was published on 27 June 2025, only one year after a symposium held at the Systematics Association biennial meeting on the University of Reading campus, England, where nine of the 14 book chapters were performed as oral presentations. The scientific program of the Reading Meeting included three symposia: besides “State and theory of New Taxonomy”, from which the book under review emerged, “New perspectives on the Tree of Life”, and “New gatekeepers of taxonomy: acceleration of taxonomy and influence of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence”, with the two first-mentioned symposia held simultaneously.

Denzer & Kaiser (2025) recently published an article in Bionomina in which they criticise Frétey (2024) for using nomina that have been subject to controversy in the herpetological community for over two decades (see Wüster et al. 2001) because they were created in an unscientifically and unethical manner. These nomina were created in works published in a self-published journal, apparently without peer review, as they are rarely based on own scientific work but on findings of others, contain plagiarism and long passages that have been ‘copied and pasted’ even within a single work (see Denzer et al. 2016) and foul and insulting remarks towards other authors. Although this is not a matter of nomenclature but rather of bad science and ethics, such works cannot be ignored by the scientific community if they contain nomenclatural content published in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Anonymous 1999, hereafter ‘the Code’). Therefore, these papers are referred to as ‘taxonomic vandalism’ (Jäch 2007a‒b). Kaiser et al. (2013) recommended ignoring those nomina or, if necessary, overwriting them, hence, setting aside the Code’s most significant principle of priority. According to an impact analysis by Wüster et al. (2021), this recommendation has been accepted almost unanimously within the herpetological community. These authors argue that the support by “[…] multiple professional societies provided the institutional backing and moral authority that empowers subsequent authors to follow their taxonomic judgement [...]”, hence ignoring unscientifically created works and nomina coined therein would be perfectly in line with the spirit of the Code as given in its Preamble. Since the Code does not rule upon taxonomic judgment, the freedom of taxonomic judgement is left untouched. However, referring to the Code’s Preamble, article 23.2 clearly states that “[…] In accordance with the objects of the Code (see Preamble), the Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability […]” (Anonymous 1999).

Failure to follow the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature can lead to significant confusion in taxonomic literature. This study examines five reptilian names (for two species, two genera and one family) that should be considered unavailable due to non-compliance with specific Code’s criteria. Proper adherence to the Code is essential for maintaining consistency and clarity in taxonomy. However, interpreting the Code is often challenging, and some of its rules require improvement. Despite these difficulties, taxonomists must remain knowledgeable about the Code regulations to ensure the nomenclatural availability of their work and stability of zoological nomenclature.

We formally name the distinct population of Dravidogecko in Coonoor Hills of the Upper Nilgiris, Western Ghats, India. The initial attempt that demonstrated molecular and geographical divergence of this species, unfortunately fell short on Code compliance for nomenclatural availability. We here sampled the very same population from the same location as that by the previous authors who erected an unavailable name. Following its published critic, we here erect the nomen Dravidogecko coonoor sp. nov. for this species, along with the first typification and full-fledged specimen description.

Various problems posed by the 2012 Amendment to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature are reviewed. They concern mainly the nomenclatural availability and the promulgation date of works published online and of the new nomina and nomenclatural acts they contain. A methodology is proposed for the analysis of these problems in many works published after 3 September 2012. A detailed survey of 120 herpetological online publications having nomenclatural implications is presented: 63 of them include unavailable nomina and nomenclatural acts, and 57 of them were made available through their printed versions at dates subsequent to that stated on their PDFs. Detailed proposals and recommendations to authors, editors and referees, publishers, libraries, and concerning the Code, Zoobank and the Commission, are offered to try to limit the negative impact of these problems in zootaxonomy.