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.