Nomenclature protects stability only when supported by good science: a response to Frétey’s (2024) list of turtle genus-series nomina

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code) aims to support taxonomic science by providing rules for creating and applying taxon names and thereby stabilizing taxonomic output. However, this stability is only achievable when the Code is supported by robust scientific practices. We here respond to the monograph on chelonian genus-series nomina by Frétey (2024) and critique the author’s inclusion of unscientific and controversial taxon names, with which he undermines the herpetological community’s decade-long consensus to reject such names. As part of Frétey’s decision to treat such nomina as available, the author failed to mention the widespread use of aspidonyms (shield names) to protect taxonomic integrity and in so doing elevates accounting over science. We argue that adherence to the Code alone is insufficient to counteract the destabilizing effects of taxonomic vandalism. Instead, the herpetological community’s unified stance against unscientific nomina, exemplified by the ‘Kaiser Veto’, has effectively safeguarded taxonomic stability even as it operates beyond the Code. By including consistently ignored names, Frétey’s work disrupts this consensus and risks reintroducing nomenclatural instability. We urge authors and editors to uphold scientific integrity by excluding unscientific nomina from taxonomic discourse, thereby preserving the spirit of the Code and ensuring the reliability of taxonomic science for its many users, including ecologists, conservationists and policymakers.