What's in a name? For the natural world, a story of discovery, identity, and sometimes, injustice.
Imagine a world where the scientific name of an animal honors a dictator, or a plant carries a racial slur within its label. This is not a hypothetical scenario but a pressing dilemma in the world of taxonomy, the science of naming life.
For centuries, biologists have used an elegant binomial nomenclature system to give every species a unique, Latin-based name. Yet, as modern science reckons with its colonial past and ethical responsibilities, a quiet revolution is unfolding over what we call the creatures we share our planet with. This is the story of how the seemingly dry field of biological classification is being transformed into a battlefield over historical justice, scientific stability, and the very language we use to describe nature.
The modern system of naming species—binomial nomenclature—was pioneered by Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century. In his groundbreaking 1753 work Species Plantarum, Linnaeus consistently implemented a simple yet powerful idea: every species should be identified by a two-part name consisting of a genus (plural: genera) followed by a specific epithet 1 .
This system replaced the unwieldy polynomial descriptions that preceded it. Before Linnaeus, a single plant might be saddled with a name like Plantago foliis ovato-lanceolatus pubescentibus, spica cylindrica, scapo tereti—a miniature description meaning "plantain with pubescent ovate-lanceolate leaves, a cylindric spike and a terete scape." Today, we know this same plant simply as Plantago media 1 .
Two-part naming system: Genus + Specific epithet
The beauty of Linnaeus's system lies in its economy and precision. The generic name identifies the broader group to which the species belongs, while the specific epithet distinguishes it from other members of that genus. For example, modern humans belong to the genus Homo (meaning "man") and the species Homo sapiens ("wise man") 1 .
Governs animal names and operates on key principles including:
Beneath the surface of this orderly system lies a troubling reality: many scientific names carry harmful legacies of colonialism, racism, and oppression. Recent scholarship has brought increased attention to what critics call "nomenclatural injustice"—the practice of immortalizing controversial figures or using derogatory terms in scientific names 4 .
A small blind beetle named after Adolf Hitler by an entomologist who admired him. The name has become so popular among neo-Nazis that it has led to the beetle's near extinction from overcollection 4 .
Comprising about 61 species of scorpions, this name uses a derogatory term historically applied to the Khoikhoi people of South Africa 4 .
Over 150 species names containing caffra, derived from "Kaffir," an offensive racial slur against Black Africans 4 .
A lizard named after Howard Stansbury, who was involved in the massacre of Timpanogos Native Americans 4 .
The problem extends beyond obviously offensive terms. There's also significant gender and geographical bias in naming practices. One analysis found that approximately 24% of African vertebrates listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List are named after White, male Europeans from the 19th and 20th centuries 4 .
Analysis shows significant European and male bias in species naming, particularly for African vertebrates.
The movement to address problematic names has sparked intense debate within the taxonomy community. In what became a notable scientific spat, researchers have exchanged strongly worded arguments about whether and how to change established names .
In 2023, this perspective was articulated in a paper signed by more than 1,500 scientists arguing against wholesale renaming 4 .
As one researcher noted, the push for nomenclatural justice "recognizes the ethical responsibility of science to reflect modern values" 4 .
| Scientific Name | Ethical Problem | Proposed Solutions |
|---|---|---|
| Anophthalmus hitleri | Named after Adolf Hitler; popular with neo-Nazis | Rename as Anophthalmus z to remove association |
| Genus Hottentotta (61 scorpion species) | Uses derogatory term for Khoikhoi people | Complete renaming of the genus |
| Various species with caffra (over 150 cases) | Derived from racial slur "Kaffir" | Replace with affra to recognize Africa |
| Uta stansburiana (lizard) | Honors someone involved in Native American massacres | Rename to remove association with controversial figure |
One of the most promising developments in this debate is the emergence of digital tools that can help manage name changes without disrupting scientific communication.
The key innovation is the use of persistent identifiers—unique codes assigned to each taxon that remain constant even if the name changes. Think of it as a Social Security number for species: the official name might be updated, but the underlying identity remains trackable across databases 4 .
Initiatives like the Catalogue of Life (COL) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) already assign unique identifiers to species records. This infrastructure could be expanded to create a "DOI for taxa"—similar to the digital object identifiers used for scientific articles—that would provide a stable, machine-readable alternative to scientific names 4 .
"While scientific names will remain the primary identifier for the research community, persistent identifiers can be used as the primary identifier for machines" 4 .
Stable reference system for tracking species despite name changes
| Resource | Primary Function | Role in Nomenclature |
|---|---|---|
| Catalogue of Life (COL) | Assembling global species lists | Provides taxonomic backbone for many biodiversity databases |
| Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) | Aggregating biodiversity data | Assigns unique identifiers to species records |
| NCBI Taxonomy Database | Curated classification for public sequence data | Links genetic data to taxonomic names |
| Persistent Identifiers | Stable reference for digital objects | Proposed "taxon DOI" system to track name changes |
Despite initial conflicts, the taxonomy community has made significant strides toward finding common ground. In a remarkable turnaround, researchers who once clashed in the literature have begun working together to develop principles for a global list of species that balances stability with ethical considerations .
This collaborative effort has yielded a draft set of ten principles that include commitments to basing the species list on science free from "non-taxonomic interference," making all decisions about the list's composition transparent, and accommodating local knowledge while encompassing global diversity .
Concrete changes are already happening. At the 2024 International Botanical Congress in Madrid, scientists voted to eliminate the racially offensive term "caffra" from more than 200 plant, fungus, and algae species. The coast coral tree, for instance, was renamed from Erythrina caffra to Erythrina affra 4 7 .
The Congress also established a committee to evaluate ethical concerns for newly discovered species—a crucial step toward preventing future problematic names 4 7 .
Researchers who once clashed are now working together on solutions
| Action Taken | Governing Body | Impact and Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Removal of caffra from over 200 species | International Botanical Congress (2024) | Eliminates racial slur from scientific names |
| Establishment of ethics committee for new names | International Botanical Congress (2024) | Creates formal process to evaluate ethical concerns for newly described species |
| Development of ten principles for global species list | International Union of Biological Sciences | Provides framework for balancing stability with ethical considerations |
| Promotion of persistent identifier systems | Multiple institutions | Enables tracking of taxa despite name changes |
Allows researchers to determine evolutionary relationships through DNA analysis rather than just physical characteristics .
Platforms like the Catalogue of Life provide comprehensive lists of existing species names to prevent duplication and confusion .
Unique codes that enable machines to track species even when their scientific names change 4 .
High-resolution imaging and measurement tools for detailed physical characterization of specimens.
Enable global cooperation among taxonomists, breaking down geographical barriers that once limited participation in naming practices 7 .
The debate over biological nomenclature represents far more than an academic squabble. It touches on fundamental questions about how science interacts with society, who has the authority to name the natural world, and what responsibilities come with that power.
"How best to ensure that scientific naming conventions reflect [modern values]—and how else they might change to reflect the modern, diverse and plural enterprise of science—is a question that the whole research community should engage with. This is difficult but necessary work" 7 .
The resolution of this conflict offers a template for other scientific fields grappling with problematic legacies. By combining technological innovation with ethical deliberation and international cooperation, taxonomists are demonstrating how science can confront its past while building a more inclusive and effective framework for the future.
What began as a struggle between stability and justice is evolving into a more nuanced understanding that these values need not be opposed. Through digital tools and collaborative governance, we can honor both the need for consistent scientific communication and the moral imperative to rectify harmful naming practices. In doing so, we create not just a more ethical science, but one better equipped to engage all people in the crucial work of understanding and protecting life's diversity.
Stability and justice need not be opposing values in taxonomy