In an earlier post (Are names really the key to the big new biology?, I questioned Patterson et al.'s assertion in a recent TREE article (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.004) that names are key to the new biology. In this post I'm going to revisit this idea by doing a quick analysis of how many species in GenBank have "proper" scientific names, and whether the number of named species has changed over time.