For many immersed in the world of naturalism, from professional biologists to hobby enthusiasts, a recurring frustration surfaces when it comes to taxonomic nomenclature: names that honor individuals. There’s a widespread feeling that organism names incorporating personal names, typically within the epithet, are not only harder to remember but also less informative.
The core belief for many, including myself, is that a taxonomic name should ideally reflect a characteristic of the organism itself. A prime example often cited is Pterocaulon pycnostachyum. This name beautifully translates to “winged stem, dense spike,” offering a vivid and accurate description of the plant. Such names are valuable educational tools, allowing us to learn Latin and Greek root words and connect these meanings directly to the organism’s attributes. This process not only aids in understanding the organism but also strengthens the association between the name and the species in our memory.
However, naming an organism after a person deviates sharply from this principle. While one might argue that it presents an opportunity to learn about the honored individual, this feels like a forced detour. When studying an organism, the primary focus should naturally be on the organism itself, not on someone indirectly related to its discovery or classification. There’s often no logical link between the person’s name and the organism’s traits, forcing us to create artificial mnemonic devices just to recall the name. This mental gymnastics distracts from truly understanding the organism.
While acknowledging the sentiment behind honoring notable scientists (or even, ironically, less distinguished figures) through species names, the concern is that this practice shifts the focus away from the organism. It introduces a distinctly human-centric bias into a field that should be, at its heart, about the natural world. Shouldn’t the emphasis be squarely on the organism, its features, and its place in the ecosystem, rather than on human recognition?
There’s a growing sentiment advocating for a gradual shift away from this practice. Many feel that the existing number of person-based names is already excessive. With constant taxonomic revisions and the continuous discovery of new species, there’s a fear that this trend will lead to an overwhelming number of organisms named after people, further obscuring the descriptive and educational potential of taxonomic names.
Is there an ongoing dialogue within the scientific community about this issue that could potentially influence naming conventions? Or is this viewpoint a minority opinion with little chance of gaining traction? While I haven’t delved into the intricacies of The International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants, it raises the question of whether there could ever be provisions to discourage, or even prohibit, the practice of naming organisms after people.
This discussion is particularly relevant in botany, given my background and experiences teaching and discussing plants. However, the underlying principles apply broadly across most biological disciplines. The core issue remains: how can we ensure that taxonomic names best serve their purpose – to facilitate understanding and communication about the incredible diversity of life on Earth, with the organism at the center?
