There is a great abundance of archaeological fish remains from coastal sites on Pacific archipelagos. Here, we propose to review and reassess the various methodologies for identifying different fish taxa employed in central-eastern Polynesia through a series of 15 case-studies (i.e., the Southern Cook Islands, Austral, Society, Tuamotu, Marquesas, Gambier, Pitcairn-Henderson). This review shows that it remains difficult to integrate a large number of diagnostic elements into analyses. The reasons are multiple, but they include a lack of species and specimens in the reference collections, and the biasing influences of determining taxon using the five-paired buccal bones. However, it is noticeable that based on a review of all the archaeo-ichthyological papers since the 1970s, practitioners have steadily increased the number of fish bone elements used in taxonomic identification. This reflects both a reduction in the sieve mesh size used to collect small bones during excavations, and probably a progressive enrichment of modern bone reference collections. Experts have generally moved on from relying entirely on the five diagnostic bones to using around thirty or even forty different elements in contemporary studies, allowing for better and more reliable identification. This effort has generated several consequences from an analytical point of view, including a better representativeness of taxa, and a greater representation of those taxa previously considered as minor, especially those that are easier to identify from skeletal elements other than the five-paired bones. However, even with the use of a greater variety of skeletal elements in analyses and an increase in identified remains we do not necessarily observe new taxa when determinations are restricted to the family level. Consequently, in addition to increasing the study sample, we argue that it is preferable to work on the precise identification of fish remains at the species rank whenever possible.