What's in a name? Taxonomic and gender biases in the etymology of new species names

Bird names as critical communication infrastructure in the contexts of history, language, and culture

Standardized taxonomies and lists of birds were created to improve communication. They are linguistic infrastructure-biodiversity indices and dictionaries-that have been painstakingly built and maintained and that have enhanced regional and global participation in the study and enjoyment of birds. Inclusion of people has been a core objective in creating and maintaining these standardized lists, and dissatisfaction and desires to overwrite objectionable names have been associated with them for nearly two centuries. Suggestions that bird names should be changed are continuous. Today, these suggestions include the view that some bird names must be changed to make them more accurate, inoffensive, and culturally appropriate to further increase diversity and inclusion among ornithologists and bird watchers. The latter, meritorious goal has been largely successful thus far despite many ongoing objections. Historic examples indicate that large-scale name changes, however, are not needed to accomplish major societal goals of inclusion. Some barriers to inclusion likely remain, and some changes are likely needed for English names. Often overlooked or underappreciated in name change discussions are that: 1) standardized names lists have had numerically staggering success in fostering inclusion of diverse participants globally; 2) stability is vital in such systems, and destabilization has exclusionary effects; 3) dissatisfaction with such lists and the names they include has been ongoing since these naming systems began; 4) important flexibilities exist in conjunction with these communication systems that enhance local and regional communication (e.g., alternative names in English and other languages); and 5) cultural values, important as they are, are neither universally shared nor constant, and thus risk bringing divisiveness and instability when used as a central reason for change. Consideration of standardized lists of bird names as communication systems in the fuller context of history, language, and culture will improve our management of these systems and their continued utility in fostering inclusion. With standardized, stable naming systems acting as a skeleton, proactively building outwards, both within and among languages and cultures, offers a positive and productive way to increase inclusion and to improve cultural and biodiversity conservation.

Nomenclatural stability and the longevity of helminth species names

Although most Latin binomial names of species are valid, many are eventually unaccepted when they are found to be synonyms of previously described species, or superseded by a new combination when the species they denote are moved to a different genus. What proportion of parasite species names become unaccepted over time, and how long does it take for incorrect names to become unaccepted? Here, we address these questions using a dataset comprising thousands of species names of parasitic helminths from four higher taxa (Acanthocephala, Nematoda, Cestoda, and Trematoda). Overall, among species names proposed in the past two-and-a-half centuries, nearly one-third have since been unaccepted, the most common reason being that they have been superseded by a new combination. A greater proportion of older names (proposed pre-1950) have since been unaccepted compared to names proposed more recently, however most taxonomic acts leading to species names being unaccepted (through either synonymy or reclassification) occurred in the past few decades. Overall, the average longevity of helminth species names that are currently unaccepted was 29 years; although many remained in use for over 100 years, about 50% of the total were invalidated within 20 years of first being proposed. The patterns observed were roughly the same for all four higher helminth taxa considered here. Our results provide a quantitative illustration of the self-correcting nature of parasite taxonomy, and can also help to calibrate future estimates of total parasite biodiversity.

Impact on species' online attention when named after celebrities

Celebrities can generate substantial attention and influence public interest in species. Using a large-scale examination of publicly available data, we assessed whether species across 6 taxonomic groups received more page views on Wikipedia when the species was named after a celebrity than when it was not. We conducted our analysis for 4 increasingly strict thresholds of how many average daily Wikipedia page views a celebrity had (1, 10, 100, or 1000 views). Overall, we found a high probability (0.96-0.98) that species named after celebrities had more page views than their closest relatives that were not named after celebrities, irrespective of the celebrity threshold. The multiplicative effect on species' page views was larger but more uncertain as celebrity page-view thresholds increased. The range for thresholds of 1 to 1000 was 1.08 (95% credible interval [CI] 1.00-1.18) to 1.76 (95% CI 0.96-2.80), respectively. The hierarchical estimates for the taxa tended to be positive. The strongest effects were for invertebrates, followed by amphibians, reptiles, fish, and mammals, whereas the weakest effect was for birds at lower page-view thresholds. Our results suggest that naming species after celebrities could be particularly significant for those belonging to taxonomic groups that are generally less popular than others (e.g., invertebrates). Celebrities may further influence the effectiveness of this marketing strategy, depending on their likability and connection to the species named after them. Eponyms may serve as a reminder of the disproportionate power dynamics between populations and some namesakes' untenable actions. However, they also provide an opportunity to recognize remarkable individuals and promote equity, inclusivity, and diversity in taxonomic practice. We encourage taxonomists to examine whether naming threatened species after celebrities could affect conservation support, especially for species that are otherwise typically overlooked by the public.

Call me by your name: Considerations of DNA sequences as types within wider discussions on fungal nomenclature

This paper discusses the interaction between two substantial debates in taxonomy and nomenclature: The potential introduction of DNA-only types into fungal taxonomy and whether certain species names are offensive and should be changed. It argues that the acceptance of DNA sequences as types will likely lead to a proliferation of eponyms (species named after a person or persons) and that this will render them more likely to censure thus creating a point of instability in the fungal nomenclature. More fundamentally, it seeks to highlight the cultural and aesthetic attraction of names and to promote wider conversation on why we consider the Latin binomial central in our description of species.

Naming the menagerie: creativity, culture and consequences in the formation of scientific names

The coining of scientific names for newly described species is one of the most creative acts in science. We briefly review the history of species naming, with an emphasis on constraints and freedoms in the choice of new names and how they came to be. We then consider patterns in etymologies and linguistic origins of scientific names across clades and through time. Use of 'non-classical' languages (those other than Latin and Greek) in naming species has increased, as has the use of eponymous names (despite recent controversy around the practice). Finally, we consider ways in which creativity in naming has consequences for the conduct and outcome of scientific work. For example, sale of naming rights has funded research and conservation, while naming species after celebrities has increased media attention to the science of species discovery. Other consequences of naming are more surprising, including a strong effect of species-name etymology on the kinds of scientific studies conducted for plant-feeding arthropods. Scientific naming is a clear example of how science and scientists are socially situated, and how culturally influenced decisions such as what to name a new species can affect both public perception of science and the conduct of science itself.

The gender gap in names of prokaryotes honouring persons

The aim of this study is to analyse prokaryotic names which honour persons, eponyms, from a gender perspective. Data were retrieved from the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature. Excluding new combinations, the etymologies of 23 315 unique names at the rank of genus, species and subspecies were analysed. A total of 2018 (8.7 %) names honour persons (eponyms), for which the development of the female share over time was further investigated. Women started to be honoured very recently (1947) compared to men (1823). Moreover, only 14.8 % of all prokaryotic eponyms refer to females. This ratio has hardly improved since 1947, although the number of women whose contributions to microbiology could have been recognized has increased over time. In contrast, about 50 % of prokaryotic names derived from mythological characters refer to females. To reduce this gender gap, we encourage authors proposing new taxon names to honour female scientists who can serve as role models for new generations.

Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others

As the number of known and described parasite species grows every year, one might ask: how much do we actually know about these species beyond the fact they exist? For free-living taxa, research effort is biased toward a small subset of species based on their properties or human-centric factors. Here, using a large data set on over 2500 helminth parasite species described in the past two decades, we test the importance of several predictors on two measures of research effort: the number of times a species description is cited following its publication, and the number of times a species' name is mentioned in the scientific literature. Our analysis highlights some taxonomic biases: for instance, descriptions of acanthocephalans and nematodes tend to receive more citations than those of other helminths, and species of cestodes are less frequently mentioned in the literature than other helminths. We also found that helminths infecting host species of conservation concern receive less research attention, perhaps because of the constraints associated with research on threatened animals, while those infecting host species of human use receive greater research effort. Intriguingly, we found that species originally described by many co-authors subsequently attract more research effort than those described by one or few authors, and that research effort correlates negatively with the human population size of the country where a species was discovered, but not with its economic strength, measured by its gross domestic product. Overall, our findings reveal that we have conducted very little research, or none at all, on the majority of helminth parasite species following their discovery. The biases in study effort we identify have serious implications for future research into parasite biodiversity and conservation.

Taxonomic practice, creativity and fashion: what’s in a spider name?

There is a secret pleasure in naming new species. Besides traditional etymologies recalling the sampling locality, habitat or morphology of the species, names may be tributes to some meaningful person, pop culture references and even exercises of enigmatography. Using a dataset of 48 464 spider etymologies, we tested the hypothesis that species names given by taxonomists are deeply influenced by their cultural background. Specifically, we asked whether naming practices change through space or have changed through time. In absolute terms, etymologies referring to morphology were the most frequently used. In relative terms, references to morphology peaked in 1850–1900 and then began to decline, with a parallel increase in etymologies dedicated to people and geography. We also observed a dramatic increase in etymologies referring to pop culture and other cultural aspects in 2000–2020, especially in Europe and the Americas. While such fashionable names often carry no biological information regarding the species itself, they help give visibility to taxonomy, a discipline currently facing a profound crisis in academia. Taxonomy is among the most unchanged disciplines across the last centuries in terms of tools, rules and writing style. Yet, our analysis suggests that taxonomists remain deeply influenced by their living time and space.

Can species naming drive scientific attention? A perspective from plant-feeding arthropods

How do researchers choose their study species? Some choices are based on ecological or economic importance, some on ease of study, some on tradition-but could the name of a species influence researcher decisions? We asked whether phytophagous arthropod species named after their host plants were more likely to be assayed for host-associated genetic differentiation (or 'HAD'; the evolution of cryptic, genetically isolated host specialists within an apparently more generalist lineage). We chose 30 arthropod species (from a Google Scholar search) for which a HAD hypothesis has been tested. We traced the etymologies of species names in the 30 corresponding genera, and asked whether HAD tests were more frequent among species whose etymologies were based on host-plant names (e.g. Eurosta solidaginis, which attacks Solidago) versus those with other etymologies (e.g. Eurosta fenestrata, from Latin fenestra, 'window'). Species with host-derived etymologies were more likely to feature in studies of HAD than those with other etymologies. We speculate that the etymology of a scientific name can draw a researcher's attention to aspects of life-history and thus influence the direction of our scientific gaze.

Male-biased selection of holotypes in parasite taxonomy: is it justified?

When a new parasite species is identified, a name-bearing specimen or holotype is designated as its reference standard. For most acanthocephalans and nematodes, the holotype is male, a bias which lacks scientific justification. We propose ways of redressing this imbalance and achieving fuller representation of each species in museum collections.

Short and sweet: an analysis of the length of parasite species names

In its advice to taxonomists, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) recommends that scientific species names should be compact, memorable, and easy to pronounce. Here, using a dataset of over 3000 species of parasitic helminths described in the past two decades, we investigate trends in the length of Latin specific names (=epithets) chosen by taxonomists. Our results reveal no significant temporal change in the length of species epithets as a function of year of description, with annual averages fluctuating around the overall average length of just over 9 letters. We also found that lengths of species epithets did not differ among the various host taxa from which the parasites were recovered, however acanthocephalan species have been given longer species epithets than other helminth taxa. Finally, although species epithets were shorter than genus names for three-quarters of the species in our dataset, we detected no relationship between the length of species epithets and that of genus names across all species included, i.e., there was no evidence that shorter species epithets are chosen to compensate for long genus names. We conclude by encouraging parasite taxonomists to follow the recommendations of the ICZN and choose species epithets that are, as much as possible, compact and easy to remember, pronounce and spell.