I think a big problem you’ll enter with that is in the world of botany or entomology, you may be describing a species from a very understudied genus. You might name a species after what’s unique about it at the time but as time progresses and more species are found, that feature that used to be distinctive becomes redundant.
7 Likes
In response to my own comment, I was going to use this as an example. My forte in entomology is Orthoptera or grasshoppers. iNat is incredibly backloaded with observations of “Red-legged” Grasshopper (Melanoplus femurrubrum). It’s Latin name literally means red-legged. At the time, I’m sure it was a diagnostic feature because there were few species in the genus and they predominately had red hind tibia. Today, there’s over 150 species, many of which equally common and all experts say the same thing. If you want a species’ identification, you must see the male genitalia. Most iNat users don’t know this but because it has a red legs, they naturally assume it’s femurrubrum which hardly describes the species at all.
10 Likes
In my opinion I don’t see anything wrong with naming a organism after a human. Even if there was something horribly wrong with it the amount of effort to be put in to change millions of taxa’s names just because they are socially unexcceptable probably would not be worth it in the end.
5 Likes
That sentence is quite disrespectful in its self, being that the person that the organism was named after I’m assuming would of put a ton of effort into either discovering or describing that species or both or just an honourable mention for something they as a person contributed to science.
9 Likes
Someone used the term, “socially acceptable terms” which to me completely describes the situation. As ideals change over time, so does the acceptance of certain names and it has nothing to do with whether or not said person was a bad person. It’s just their lifestyle does not fit the agenda of today’s society, which goes back to my original statement that people these days are a little too sensitive or the more likely reason, because people today do not look back on the history and make assumptions.
2 Likes
Thank you for that, next time I see one I will remember to look for the ‘rough’.
2 Likes
Would like to clarify that I’m in no way advocating that we change any existing names, rather refrain from this practice while coming up with new names.
Like another poster, I have a much easier time remembering mesembryanthemifolia.
Perhaps preferences regarding the use of human names has some aspect rooted in the way we learn.
I quite like that list! Though, I hadn’t considered the task of naming multiple non-descript organisms, and too am sympathetic.
I too, don’t mind the redundancies. If there are multiple “large” species in a genus and their epithets all reflect that in some way, then that works for me.
Great discussion!
4 Likes
Most of those names don’t have any meaning for me or other people, it’s just letters, as well as latin words that you can learn, but you won’t know them all, so what’s the difference between two meaningless words? Human brain is focused on everything regarding humans, so there’s a possibility names are easier to learn too if we’re talking about average human as some do have problems with names, but others forget any word, so it’s not something we should stick to while naming species.
1 Like
I agree with Blue. An entire species named after an individual human is problematic for a lot of reasons. It also makes it harder to remember the name of the species.
4 Likes
I share your concerns but perhaps for somewhat different reasons. My rationale is multiple:
- The names are not descriptive, which makes them more work to learn and remember. A lot of the time, common names contain useful information about ID or habitat (I.e. “Swamp white oak” = white oak that tends to grow in moist habitats, or “White wood aster” = (Usually) white blooming aster tending to occur in woodland habitats) and honorary names don’t ever do this (“Shumard oak”, “Schreber’s aster”, those tell me nothing about the species themselves.)
- It’s Western-centric; a lot of indigenous cultures have names for species or other taxa, but in our society they are named after scientists in Western culture. So in many cases we are discarding ancient names and renaming them something new.
- It tends to honor people who are already privileged and well-known and it doesn’t necessarily apportion recognition fairly. The people who get to be scientists, on average, are from more privileged backgrounds. While it’s great to honor their work, I think it is problematic to assume that they are somehow “more worthy of honor”. Scientists are often supported by all sorts of other people along the way and often it’s just one person who gets the credit, but there are a lot of other people’s work who went into the work of the person who gets credit. There are a lot of scientists who lay groundwork but don’t end up taking much credit, there are a lot of people who get famous just because of luck of when their results came in or where they published. This is perhaps less true of naturalists, but I still don’t like the practice of honorific names for that reason.
I’d rather use strictly descriptive names. With common names, since there are usually multiple names, I usually favor the one that is most descriptive. So for example, with Shumard oak, you can call it “Swamp red oak” and I’d love for that name to catch on.
5 Likes
Totally agree
2 Likes
Sometimes that can get confusing, too. Among North American wood warblers, there is the Common Yellowthroat, and the Yellow-throated Warbler. Both names are descriptive, but they are also confusingly similar.
3 Likes
That’s why we have and usually refer to scientific names. Many species will have multiple common names and just because one is used more often doesn’t mean the other indigenous name is discarded. But it’s good science if you have a universal name and that happens to be the scientific name that may be descriptive or named after someone.
Not necessarily true. There’s a series of Central America organisms in the 1850’s that are named after Aztec leaders and kings, or indigenous people. The famous Redwood got its genus name from a Cherokee who wrote the language in 1847. And the list can go on; Greek mythology, Japanese emperors, Egyptian monarchies, Tibetan monks; all of these names dating well back into the 20th century. So there is no shortage of inclusion in the science. We can always do better but when we refer to scientists past that they are-
is not the best road to go in my opinion, because you’re implying these persons are bad, racist people. We really don’t know and I personally do not believe it’s our place to judge without personally knowing them.
7 Likes
Indigenous names are common names as well as common names in other languages, scientific name can but not obligatory has to reflect that common name. If it’s Western-centric than we can argue that many scientific names are just straight Latin or Greek names of e.g. birds, while species live in multiple other countries where they have tons of other common names, many of those are not in use anymore.
Scientists are usually outcasts of society, they don’t get money and wealth, many don’t have any “background” you refer to, and they’re not known outside of specific taxon society, they’re not pop stars. If you check how species are named it’s often one species named after teacher, but others are after those who helped with expedition or who spotted the species, it’s untrue to say one person gets the credit.
And let’s finish with Linnaeus who popularised modern scientific naming and named a toad Bufo bufo after Buffon and in not a honorific way, if he could do it then why can’t other scientists? Common name of a toad doesn’t refer to a person at all.
2 Likes
I’ve never seen a reference that suggested the use of Bufo by Linnaeaus (originally as Rana bufo) had any connection to Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon. Indeed, the origin of the word Bufo is from Latin, meaning toad. Perhaps the English word “buffoon” has a connection to Latin bufo (from buffo) but don’t know.
I much prefer Bufo, as it was used until recently for our New World as well as Old World toad species. A lot easier to say and spell than Anaxyrus. But so it goes with taxonomic revision.
2 Likes
That’s what we were taught in school and even university? Maybe it’s a myth after all.
I still can’t remember a new genus for green toads, guess I’m getting old as Chroicocephalus was easy to remember back then.
As someone who spends a lot of time trying to bridge between scientific communities and the public, I’ve found honorifics a real hindrance when they seep into common names. Try telling someone, “This one is Taylor’s Frog, and this one is Limborg’s Frog”, and watch their eyes just glaze over. It’s part of how the human brain works that names which have no clear connection to the organism itself are going to be tougher to remember and build a connection to than names with direct physical or geological referents.
Of course with scientific names it’s generally assumed that laypersons can be ignored, but I still find honorifics tacky. Especially as most honorifics, even outside of Europe, seem to tend towards White people and typically White people in positions of authority (government posts, department heads, etc). Why draw the focus away from the organism? Who benefits from that?
7 Likes
and people’s names can be daunting to spell, since they come from so many languages. I would rather try and learn a traditional local name.
From Alstroemeria (Swedish name for Inca lilies) to Zantedeschia (Italian name for Cape’s arum lilies).
3 Likes
Oh well. Compare descriptive genus name Unguiculariopsis (I still cannot pronounce it) and honorific Skyttea…
2 Likes