Since the turn of the century, we have witnessed an extremely intensive development of biotechnology and nanotechnology, which, in terms of intensity can only be compared to the development of information technology and the resulting emergence of artificial intelligence. In the present review, we deliberately omit the development of information technology and artificial intelligence. Instead, our interest is focused on bionanomaterials and nanobiomaterials, their production and applications, and, in particular, the different meanings of these terms. We adopted an analysis of the literature published between January 2000 and May 2025, available in PubMed. The database was searched for selected areas: types (origin, structure, and function), manufacturing methods (chemical, physicochemical, and biological), and applications (medicine/pharmacy, textile technology, cosmetology, and agriculture/environment). Our findings revealed a significant increase in the number of publications for both terms, with nanobiomaterials predominating. The authors of the publications included in PubMed clearly outline the separation of meanings of both concepts, despite the lack of normative regulations in this regard. Nanoparticles are the most commonly represented type in the use of both terms, and drug delivery is a dominant application. However, it is worth noting the lack of nanobiomaterials in the agricultural/environmental application categories. Despite the enormous similarity between the terms “nanobiomaterials” and “bionanomaterials,” both in terms of nomenclature and application, there is a significant difference resulting from the manufacturing technologies and applications used. The term “nanobiomaterials” should be assigned only to biomaterials, in accordance with the definition of a biomaterial, regardless of their manufacturing technology, while the term “bionanomaterials” should be applied to all products of bionanotechnology, excluding products used as biomaterials.