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.

中文翻译：

---

如何不描述一个物种：来自蟒蛇缠结的教训（Boidae：Eunectes Wagler，1830）


最近对水蚺（蛇类：Boidae：Eunectes）的修订，描述了一种新的绿色水蚺品种，引起了广泛的关注，但由于所使用的证据不足和命名错误，也引起了相当大的争议。我们在这里使用这个有问题的出版物的案例来：（i）强调影响物种划界的常见问题，特别是过度依赖线粒体 DNA 数据，并重申最佳实践； (ii) 重新分析水蟒现有的数据，以确定当前的真实知识状况并突出进一步研究的方向； (iii) 分析该属的命名历史和现状。虽然我们的分析揭示了绿色和黄色水蚺的显着形态变异，但为了对水蚺进行有意义的物种界定，需要更密集的采样和对信息丰富的核标记的分析。追溯有名类型的历史，1758 年将特立尼达确定为 Boa murina Linnaeus 的模式产地，并允许鉴定该物种现存的选型。最后，我们强调期刊和作者都有责任确保已发表的分类学工作满足证实新物种描述所需的证据负担，并确保物种的命名符合动物学命名法的规则。