Rhampholeon monteslunae

Originally referred to Rhampholeon boulengeri. In between, the taxonomy changed...
According to the revision of R. boulengeri, this population is now attributed to
Rhampholeon monteslunae
named after the "Mountains of the Moon", a name assigned to the mysterious Ruwenzori Mountains on the boundary between Uganda and DRC, where it occurs.
This splitting is another taxonomical act, when cryptic species, that can not be differentiated by any morphological features are described and are distinguishable only based on their place of occurrence and DNA, to be analysed in the lab and absolutely impossible in the practical field work (you can not catch and take tissue samples of free living animals without special equipment, education and more and more permits nowadays). Anyway, based on today's scientific standards it is a valid name and separate species and as such we should treat it. It its good when unknown taxa are attributed names for the purpose of research and practical conservation...
As someone who knows Latin, I can not reserve a note about the name... The name sounds correct and based on the current practice and guidelines of the Commission of the Zoological Nomenclature and the current Interpretation of the Code (ICZN) it is correct, as it stands as noun in apposition... Linguistically, however, it represents a very problematic construct which does not make sense. It used to be a good practice to define a "nomen topographicus" as an adjective using the suffix -ensis, -ense for the respective grammatical genders. Such name was clearly tied to a topographic name and easily declined and understood. As a later alternative, a genitive of a noun was also used, always in grammatical accordance with the generic name. So, the name would sound either "monteslunaensis" or "monteslunorum" (which is a bit problematic, it would be probably skipped.) What the authors decided is a linguistical dead-end, for sure not understandable for english speaking audition, as in this language, no accordance between the gender of substantive and adjective exists. Not so in Latin, roman or slavonic languages. The name "monteslunae" means verbally "Mountains of the Moon". So, the species of a tiny chameleon has SAME name as the huge mountains on the foothills of which it is living. Same as if there would be e.g. a Chamaeleo chicago... Also not meaningful. Moreover, Rhampholeon is obviously a name in singular while the adjective is a plural... Also linguistically not possible. The noun in apposition is usually used if the animal is similar to something and it does not need to be modified to the adjective, such as e.g. in Calumma gallus (meaning Chameleon - rooster) or if it wears an attribute like a spur, then the name can be formed as e.g. Chamaeleo calcarifer (Chameleon the Spur-Wearer, Chameleon wearing spur).
When Linnaeus invented the Binomical nomenclature, he wisely used Latin as a "dead" language, which does not develop further and stays stable for centuries and thus serves the stability of the nomenclature. It was also the language of scientists and educated people, who considered it noble to communicate and define their thoughts in this language of the wisdom.
If Linnaeus would see how we twist his original thoughts and treat Latin, I doubt he would agree with that. But we are forced now to accept taxonomically correct lingustical nonsenses like R. monteslunae, R. rubeho, or, going to other fields to accept insane atrocities like Macrovipera lebetinus...