The work was published in a Portuguese scientific periodic (O Instituto), that was released in volumes. This volumes were usually published from three to three months, and after that gathered together in Tome containing several volumes. This Tomes however didn't follow a normal year calendar, but the academic calendar, starting in September and ending in August. Despite this, both type of publication were available, but I believe that this "year tomes" were more dispersed than the small volumes. This was the case for this work. The point that you refer here is however very pertinent. This paper is clearly a correction to an nomenclatural error presented by the authors. However it was not my intention to "blame" the authors or to somehow diminish their work. The paper by Stock et al. is a great and helpful work for anyone working in European herpetofauna, and their methods and results are clear and very solid. The problem, as you interesting pinpointed is the fact that actually the pressure to publish in "good" journals that care much more about "how actual are the methods?", "how the manuscript follows the actual investigation tendencies?", etc., usually leads to neglect this "old and dusty" nomenclatural problems. That sometimes leaves me to think about some referees interest, or even knowledge, in terms of nomenclature and basic taxonomical principles.

The other thing is that natural history studies, even if using state-of-the-art technology, still depends, and will always depend, in the "historical" data in an almost equal way that it will depend on the "natural" data. However, the advent of statistics, mathematics models, and all of these complex "quantitative" approaches, led to a prejudice of qualitative data. This is dangerous in the way that many important information will be neglected just because it is not "measurable" nor possible to attach to statistical models.

The problem is that information is not easily available to scientists not in museums. The collections should make a bigger effort to make their catalogues available in the internet.

In this case, this not even refers to museums or collections. Although, your are right when you say that in many cases collections, specimens and all the subsequent data are not easily available to investigators. There are several reasons that led our museums to this situation. One of them, unfortunately very common, is the "feudalistic" thinking that many curators have regarding the collections under their management, that block, without any particular or logical explanation, the access to any outsiders. But in my opinion the main issue is not that one, it is the funding and the peer recognition of historical/museum studies. How can data, collections and specimens be available to investigators if there is no one studying, preserving and managing it? And why this happen? Because this studies are still marked by prejudice. If the works made in a museum are not recognized or even accepted in major journals, how can then their professionals apply for grants or projects? Thereafter "modern" scientists will always call for data regarding collections and then complain that it doesn't exist. These scientists will be the same that when reviewing manuscripts will simply discard them because there is no statistic nor quantitative data in there. The problem goes deeper when we talk about museum professionals, like taxidermists, assistants, collections managers and all the other personnel whose work is vital but do not produce papers.

Luis Ceriaco: "However, the advent of statistics, mathematics models, and all of these complex "quantitative" approaches, led to a prejudice of qualitative data. This is dangerous in the way that many important information will be neglected just because it is not "measurable" nor possible to attach to statistical models."

OK, but everything can not be included into statistical models. Not to mention the cases when there are available only few (in extreme situations only one) elements. For example in case of classic taxonomical works, when the holotypus is described based on the features of a single specimen (in most cases a male...).

Mario Ferreira: "The problem is that information is not easily available to scientists not in museums. The collections should make a bigger effort to make their catalogues available in the internet."

hehe, so the phenomenon is present in other countries, too.

Here is also quite difficult to access museal collections, especially if the curator is of the same specialty as You are...

"One of them, unfortunately very common, is the "feudalistic" thinking that many curators have regarding the collections under their management, that block, without any particular or logical explanation, the access to any outsiders."

In our country there is a saying like this: "If my goat died, then my neighbor's goat should also die!"