We recently stated that Article 23.9 of the Code could not be used to validate the nomen Hyla prasinaBurmeister, 1856 against its senior synonym Hyla quoyiBory de Saint-Vincent, 1828, but this statement was shown to be wrong by two teams of authors. The discrepancy between the analyses is due to the huge incompleteness of the database Web of Science. This suggests that the greatest care should be given to any search for references using scientific and bibliographic databases, especially if the recourse to Article 23.9 is contemplated. We agree that the nomen Hyla prasina should now be maintained for this species, which might require the intervention of the Commission under its plenary power. This unusual case prompted us to propose comments on the use of taxonomic and bibliographic databases, as well as modifications concerning Article 23.9 of the Code.