Disagreements in Chameleon Taxonomy

A paper critically revisits a single recent publication on the Chamaeleo dilepis complex. The authors question the validity of the description of C. incognitus, citing formal and factual shortcomings, and argues that elevating certain subspecies to species rank is premature. As a result, C. roperi is reverted to C. dilepis roperi and C. martensi to C. dilepis martensi. While some of the author's arguments are reasonable, others are less convincing and some erroneous, yet they are presented with an air of absolute correctness and in a tone that can feel derogatory. 

Remarkably, this is the first paper in the history of chameleonology to contribute no new descriptive data, focusing entirely on dismantling the work of another researcher and reverting the made changes without offering new evidence or argumentation—based solely on the assessment that the changes are premature. Although the authors criticise publishing venues, peer review processes are indeed in place, making claims of their absence unfair.