Batrachology or herpetology?

Good afternoon! I do not know how appropriate this question is for this forum: is batrachology an independent branch of zoology, or are batrachology and herpetology now synonyms, with “batrachology” being an outdated term, as informed sources like the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Wikipedia tell us? The question grew out of discussion of an amphibian post in the “Biology” VK public page: http://vk.com/feed?section=comments. I am trained as a biologist; at university (Turkmen State University) I studied toads under Yevgeny Maksimovich Pisanets, and after graduation I worked with him in Melitopol, though not for long. Since 1995, unfortunately, I have not been professionally connected to biology, do not follow specialist literature, and do not consider myself an established zoologist. Therefore, I cannot professionally argue my opinion on this issue. My opinion is this: batrachology is an independent branch of zoology; specialists studying amphibians usually do not study reptiles in parallel. However, I allow that there may be serious reasons not to separate batrachology into an independent “science.” Perhaps Russian-language literature treats it one way while foreign colleagues think differently. I would like to hear a competent opinion. I understand the question is not highly fundamental, and whether to “include in” or “separate from” may in any case be a matter of convention. Some think one way, others another. But what hurt in discussion was the position “google it and calm down, Wikipedia has long had the only possible answer to your stupid question.” I would like a more reasonable approach in a thematic community. And for the younger generation, firmly convinced that if something is written in an encyclopedia then it must be true and need not be checked or thought about, I would like to demonstrate the need for an alternative approach to information sources.