Certain concepts in biology have been with us for so long that it seems hardly worth putting them to the test. However, last year, two papers published in Nature were the talk of the town among developmental biologists. They described data that did not easily fit with the widely accepted model — which has been around since the 1970s — for how the proximo-distal axis of the limb develops. On page 133, Lee Niswander provides some background to this developmental problem and discusses whether the old model has now been disproved or merely requires modifications in light of the new findings.

Wen-Hsiung Li and colleagues have recently revisited another 'old' problem — the role of gene duplication. As summarized in a Highlight on page 80, their new results suggest that duplicated genes — as well as providing the material for evolutionary innovation — have an important role in genetic buffering against null mutations.

But it's not just hard facts that are being challenged in this issue. In an Opinion article on page 152, Peter Turnpenny and Ron Smith discuss the topic of naming medical genetic conditions. They argue that the names used are often confusing and, at times, historically inaccurate. Instead, the authors propose that, in the absence of a formal nomenclature committee, genetic syndromes should be referred to by an 'orthonym' — a 'straight' and 'direct' official name for a syndrome, which would rationalize the mixture of eponyms, acronyms and technical descriptions that are currently in use.

Finally, as you see below, there have been some changes at Nature Reviews Genetics. Last month we sadly said goodbye to Jane Alfred, who has been with the journal since its launch, and welcomed Catherine Baxter, who will bring her expertise in plant genetics to the journal.