Anilios fossor sp. nov. is described from a single specimen collected in 1989 from Ruby Gap Nature Park, Northern Territory. The species differs from all other Anilios species in the combination of 20 midbody scales, 514 dorsal scales, a rounded, non-angulate snout in lateral and dorsal profile, a nasal cleft contacting the second supralabial and not extending to the head dorsum, and a large round rostral shield in dorsal view. It is unclear whether the paucity of material of this species represents a limited distribution, or poor sampling in a remote, sparsely settled part of the continent. Evidence for the recognition of the Australian typhlopid fauna as a distinct genus Anilios is critically reviewed, and the genus is found to be recognizable only on genetic evidence. Some other recent nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in the Australian typhlopid fauna are considered and rejected.

In their careful analysis of python phylogeny and evolution, Esquerré et al. (2020) proposed the new genus-series nomen Nawaran for the Oenpelli python, Simalia oenpelliensis (Gow, 1977). However, Nawaran is a junior synonym of Nyctophilopython Wells & Wellington, 1985, a name that was validly, though controversially, published in compliance with the Code. Furthermore, while the nomen Nawaran initially appeared in an “early view” of the article on or about 21 May 2020, it was not registered on Zoobank until 23 September 2020 and did not become available for the purposes of zoological nomenclature until 30 November 2020, the date of the printed publication according to Article 21.3 of the Code. Complications for nomenclature resulting from “pre-publications” and lapses with Zoobank registration are not uncommon, and we urge taxonomists considering the erection of new nomina to give careful attention to the nomenclatural rules of the Code.

Under the recently adopted Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, 196 Parties committed to reporting the status of genetic diversity for all species. To facilitate reporting, three genetic diversity indicators were developed, two of which focus on processes contributing to genetic diversity conservation: maintaining genetically distinct populations and ensuring populations are large enough to maintain genetic diversity. The major advantage of these indicators is that they can be estimated with or without DNA‐based data. However, demonstrating their feasibility requires addressing the methodological challenges of using data gathered from diverse sources, across diverse taxonomic groups, and for countries of varying socio‐economic status and biodiversity levels. Here, we assess the genetic indicators for 919 taxa, representing 5271 populations across nine countries, including megadiverse countries and developing economies. Eighty‐three percent of the taxa assessed had data available to calculate at least one indicator. Our results show that although the majority of species maintain most populations, 58% of species have populations too small to maintain genetic diversity. Moreover, genetic indicator values suggest that IUCN Red List status and other initiatives fail to assess genetic status, highlighting the critical importance of genetic indicators.

We present information on primary type specimens for 13,282 species and subspecies of reptiles compiled in the Reptile Database, that is, holotypes, neotypes, lectotypes, and syntypes. These represent 99.4% of all 13,361 currently recognized taxa (11,050 species and 2311 subspecies). Type specimens of 653 taxa (4.9%) are either lost or not located, were never designated, or we did not find any information about them. 51 species are based on iconotypes. To map all types to physical collections we have consolidated all synonymous and ambiguous collection acronyms into an unambiguous list of 364 collections holding these primary types. The 10 largest collections possess more than 50% of all (primary) reptile types, the 36 largest collections possess more than 10,000 types and the largest 73 collections possess over 90% of all types. Of the 364 collections, 107 hold type specimens of only 1 species or subspecies. Dozens of types are still in private collections. In order to increase their utility, we recommend that the description of type specimens be supplemented with data from high-resolution images and CT-scans, and clear links to tissue samples and DNA sequence data (when available). We request members of the herpetological community provide us with any missing type information to complete the list.

A recent revision of the anacondas (Serpentes: Boidae: Eunectes), with the description of a new species of green anaconda, generated extensive publicity, but also provoked considerable controversy due to inadequacies of the evidence used and errors in nomenclature. We here use the case of this problematic publication to: (i) highlight common issues affecting species delimitations, especially an over-reliance on mitochondrial DNA data, and reiterate best practices; (ii) reanalyse the data available for anacondas to establish the true current state of knowledge and to highlight lines of further research; and (iii) analyse the nomenclatural history and status of the genus. While our analysis reveals significant morphological variation in both green and yellow anacondas, denser sampling and an analysis of informative nuclear markers are required for meaningful species delimitation in Eunectes. Tracing the history of name-bearing types establishes Trinidad as the type locality for Boa murina Linnaeus, 1758 and allows identification of the extant lectotype for the species. Finally, we emphasize the responsibility of both journals and authors to ensure that published taxonomic work meets the burden of evidence required to substantiate new species descriptions and that species are named in compliance with the rules of zoological nomenclature.

Australia hosts approximately 10% of the world’s reptile species, the largest number of any country. Despite this and evidence of widespread decline, the first comprehensive assessment of the conservation status of Australian terrestrial squamates (snakes and lizards) was undertaken only recently. Here we apply structured expert elicitation to the 60 species assessed to be in the highest IUCN threat categories to estimate their probability of extinction by 2040. We also assessed the probability of successful reintroduction for two Extinct in the Wild (EW) Christmas Island species with trial reintroductions underway. Collation and analysis of expert opinion indicated that six species are at high risk (>50%) of becoming extinct within the next 20 years, and up to 11 species could be lost within this timeframe unless management improves. The consensus among experts was that neither of the EW species were likely to persist outside of small fenced areas without a significant increase in resources for intense threat management. The 20 most imperilled species are all restricted in range, with three occurring only on islands. The others are endemic to a single state, with 55% occurring in Queensland. Invasive species (notably weeds and introduced predators) were the most prevalent threats, followed by agriculture, natural system modifications (primarily fire) and climate change. Increased resourcing and management intervention are urgently needed to avert the impending extinction of Australia’s imperilled terrestrial reptiles.