We are in a period of mass extinctions, when many species of animals, plants and other organisms are disappearing through direct or indirect human activities. Yet, the declining numbers of expert taxonomists represents a barrier to identifying, studying and protecting threatened species (Wilson 2005). This is especially true in developing countries such as Sri Lanka. ‗How can we enjoy and protect something if we don't know it is out there to enjoy and protect?' (Evenhuis 2007). As urgent as the description of newly discovered species is, such descriptions must necessarily take place in the context not only of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999, hereafter the Code) but also a sound ethical framework including adherence to local laws. Even urgently needed taxonomic research cannot be justified if it breaches ethical guidelines or the laws of the countries in which the organisms of interest originate, as the following cases illustrate. A new species epithet-Cladonotus bhaskari‖ (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae: Cladonotini) was recently erected to describe a Sri Lankan twighopper, and the description was published by Tumbrinck, Deranja, Adžic, Pavlovic and Skejo in the journal Zootaxa, volume 4821, Number 2 on 31 July 2020. The authors based their description (pp. 337-340 in that publication) on a single female specimen (holotype) collected from Sinharaja rainforest, Sabaragamawa, Sri Lanka, and claimed that the holotype is deposited in Museum Koenig in Bonn, Germany (ZFMK). The authors were, however, unable to provide any catalogue number for the holotype (Tumbrinck et al. 2020). Given this omission I suspected that the holotype may not have been deposited at the ZFMK. On 12 September 2020, I contacted Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof, Director, Zoological Research Museum (Museum Koenig in Bonn, ZFMK), Adenauerallee 160, 53113 Bonn to investigate whether the holotype of Cladonotus bhaskari is actually deposited at ZFMK. On 16 September 2020, Prof. Misof replied-we have checked in our collection and do not have this holotype, as you suspected already. This also explains why there is no designated catalogue number in the publication‖. Hence, the epithet Cladonotus bhaskari was based on an unavailable specimen. In this case a holotype has been fixed but it is currently not in the collection where it is intended to be deposited. It is a common situation that it takes some considerable time after the description before a specimen gets deposited in its intended repository. Normally, specimens end up where they are stated to be deposited. Considering this reality, the Code only requires-a statement of intent‖ to deposit the type specimen in a collection, not that it is actually deposited; i.e. just a statement of typedesignation indicating the name and location of the collection (see Art. 16, Section 4, Number 2 of the Code). In this case it is intended to deposit the holotype at ZFMK (but currently it is not available at ZFMK), hence the nomen Cladonotus bhaskari is available and valid. Also there are a large nu...