Two subspecies have been described; the nominate subspecies, and S. mitranus muscatensis Murray, 1886. Scincus m. muscatensis was considered a synonym of S. mitranus mitranus by Gardner (2013) and Carranza et al. (2018).

We provisionally treat Pseudocerastes fieldi Schmidt, 1930 as a distinct species (Uetz and Hallermann 2010, Uetz et al. 2018, Šmíd and Tolley 2019), although in some accounts it is treated as a subspecies of P. persicus (Leviton et al. 1992).Pseudocerastes bicornis Wall, 1913, described from a single locality on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border at the eastern range limit for the genus, has long been considered a junior synonym of P. persicus (Sindaco et al. 2013), and this scheme is followed here, but is listed as a valid species without comment by Khan (2006).Recent studies have confirmed that Pseudocerastes persicus from Oman and the United Arab Emirates (the) are genetically the same as those from Iran (de Pous et al. 2016).

Originally assessed for the UAE as the nominate subspecies, Cerastes gasperettii ssp. gasperettii Leviton & Anderson, 1967, but assessment moved to the species-level as only the nominate subspecies is present in the UAE. Indeed, the status of subspecies Cerastes gasperettii ssp. mendelssohni has been under dispute and the general consensus is that it might not be valid (J. Els pers. comm. 2018).

This species is widely known under the generic name Malpolon (although it was included in the genus Scutophis by Geniez et al. 2004). Kelly et al. (2008) found that this species is genetically distinct from other members of Malpolon, but took no taxonomic action. Investigating the nomenclatural history of this snake, Böhme and de Pury (2011) resurrected the genus Rhagerhis for this taxon, a name previously (and erroneously) considered to be unavailable. Rhagerhis appears to be nested within Malpolon (Figueroa et al. 2016), but Uetz et al. (2019) notes that this apparent synonymy not been widely adopted.Rhamphiophis maradiensis, described from Niger, is now understood to be a junior synonym of R. moilensis (Trape and Mané 2006, I. Ineich pers. comm. 2013), although this treatment has been disputed (L. Chirio pers. comm. in Uetz et al. 2019).

The morphological diversity of this species complex is not adequately reflected in current subspecific divisions (Auliya and Koch 2020). This species is divided into three subspecies which occupy distinct geographical regions and can be identified by size, tail shape, and the number of bands on the body and tail. Varanus griseus griseus has a rounded tail and highest number of bands, Varanus griseus caspius reaches the largest size and has a laterally compressed tail, while Varanus griseus koniecznyi is the smallest subspecies and has the fewest bands (Stanner 2004).

According to Stöck et al. (2001), the taxonomy and nomenclature of this species requires aData deficientitional research, since the specimen considered the holotype by Balletto et al. (1985) is not that one described by Heyden (1827). Bufo hadramautinus Cherchi 1963 was synonymized with Bufo arabicus by Schätti and Desvoignes (1999). This species was under the generic name Duttaphrynus but is now treated under Sclerophrys (Frost 2016).

The taxonomy of genus Gazella is complex and several different arrangements have been proposed, but several issues remain unresolved. Gazella arabica was originally described from a single specimen: a skin and a skull obtained on the Farasan Islands off the coast of Saudi Arabia (or at least labelled as such). This became something of a mystery taxon and is different from the gazelles currently found there. Bärman et al. (2012) extracted DNA from the type specimen and showed that this was not a single specimen, assigning the skin to G. g. cora and the skull to gazelles of the northern type (G. g. gazella). Wronski et al. (2010) showed that Gazella gazella, in fact, consists of two monophyletic lineages, a northern clade (represented by samples from the Golan Heights) and a southern clade (based on samples from the Arabian Peninsula including the southern Arava Valley), based on mtDNA markers. Lerp et al. (2012) produced similar conclusions using nuclear markers and including samples from Central Israel. A morphological and genetic study of genus Gazella (Bärmann et al. 2013), and a genetic study of gazelles in the southern Levant (Hadas et al. 2015) all further support the existence of two monophyletic lineages: a northern clade (Gazella gazella), and a southern clade (provisionally named G. arabica on the basis that this name takes precedence over cora). This arrangement is now followed by the IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, with G. gazella replacing G. g. gazella in the former arrangement, and the name G. arabica provisionally retained for the southern clade, pending a ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). So G. arabica, as understood here, comprises all the gazelles formerly considered under G. gazella, from the southern Negev through the Arabian Peninsula. Several subspecies have been named under G. gazella and have previously been evaluated for The IUCN Red List: acaciae; in the southern Arava Valley; cora in most of the Arabian Peninsula; farasani on the Farasan Islands; and muscatensis on the Batinah coast of Oman. Genetic research by scientists at King Khaled Wildlife Research Centre (Saudi Arabia) and Zoological Society of London (ZSL) has confirmed the existence of some intraspecific variation, but there is no agreement on the validity of these named subspecies and they are not assessed separately for the time being, until a definitive analysis has been produced. All of the above are included in G. arabica here. The relationship between G. arabica (as here) and two other 'mystery' species, G. erlangeri and G. bilkis awaits confirmation.