Naming organisms after people

[haemocyanin11]

@silversea_starsong

There’s just too many species out there to follow “distinctive” naming after features. Location naming is another case, but that also tends to miss the full distribution of the organism (I’m looking at all those “canadensis” found in California, Texas…etc.).

I agree. However, sometimes this may be the case…

@astra_the_dragon

I think naming a whole taxon after one human, even a great human, is extremely narrow-minded and perhaps even arrogant.

After all, how could you tell if this meant to honor someone, if the person just ran out of ways to name new species, or if they are arrogant? I think a better way, and maybe this is already being practiced, is to do something in the middle. Name something based on their defining features. It that does not work, then use other means like numbers or people’s names. Also, people’s names could be used for more common names, if it is applicable. I know that trying to come up with common names for species is a whole another quandary in itself - The Right of a Fly to a Common Name.

Moreover, @robotpie has a good point, too.

@robotpie

I’ve never considered that the scientific name should be associated with a basic description of the organism it is given to. To me, it is just this objective thing where there is a one-to-one correspondence between the binomial and the organism.