The practice of referring to certain morphologically karst-like phenomena as ‘pseudokarst’ is problematic, because it ignores basic principles of sound classification, logical naming conventions and accepted geomorphic classifications and terminology. These problems have compounded the difficulty in establishing an accepted classification of ‘pseudokarst’ types. The practice embodies a karst-centric perspective which should be avoided in favour of using conventional geomorphic terminology for non-karstic features. We illustrate this by providing existing conventional terms for many ‘pseudokarst’ types reported in the literature.