If we adopt Pauling's formula for calculating bond order from bond length data (d = d0c•log(n)), we can clearly show how the longest bonds in each polyiodide show a smooth transition to lower and lower bond orders (Figure Intriguingly, I8 2-and higher charge polyiodides (I7 3-and I16 4-bond length variability not reported since the number of observations is insufficient) start accumulating in a similar spot with a bond order of about 0.1. In any case, this is a qualitative bond order view of the Lewis dot formulas considerations made above. In other words, polyiodides showing bonds in the 3.3-3.4 Å range show Pauling bond orders > 0.2. As a reference, 3.40 Å is also the 2c-1e bond distance calculated for the longest bond of the linear I5 -chain. Thus, the view of polyiodides as a mixture of (modulated) 2c-2e-like, 3c-4e-like and the now included 2c-1e-like multicenter bonds, conceptually resolves the "no man's land" 4 region of bond lengths that is experimentally observed between intra-and inter-molecular bonds. This proposed scheme also suggests the revision of the 3.3 Å sharp cutoff distance for covalency, as we previously advocated based on interatomic distances, and has been also recently questioned in periodates. In conclusion, calculations with Pauling's formula clearly suggest that the bond length increases as we go from the 2c-2e bond to the 3c-4e bond and further to the 2c-1e type of bond; i.e. as the number of electrons shared (ES) between two atoms decreases. This result is in agreement with the decrease of the calculated ES values between two atoms (obtained from the Quantum Theory of Atoms In Molecules) when we go from the covalent bond (ES ≈ 2) to the ERMB (2 > ES > 1.4) and further to the EDMB (ES < 1.4). Neither secondary, nor halogen bonds, nor necessarily holes: onto the need of a new model for supramolecular interactions Some of us tried to humbly tackle the raising nomenclature issue in the near past, when the concern was still mostly circumscribed to the halogen bond and there was still room for manoeuvre. Old school secondary bond model seemed to hold better than the more modern halogen bond model. Naming efforts continued at the community level regardless. A more pressing critique, not just to the halogen bond concept, but to the whole group-by-group nomenclature, was recently presented, raising several conceptual and historical arguments against it. Intervention by IUPAC was suggested.