The parataxis relation as defined for Universal Dependencies 2.0 is general and, for this reason,sometimes hard to distinguish from competing analyses, such as coordination, conj, or apposi-tion, appos. The specific subtypes that are listed for parataxis are also quite different in character.In this study we first show that the actual practice by UD-annotators is varied, using the parallelUD (PUD-) treebanks as data. We then review the current definitions and guidelines and suggestimprovements.