Hitler beetle, Beyoncé bee, is it appropriate to put human names on species?

Elena Camacho

Madrid, Apr 11 (EFE) .- For two hundred years, scientists use the Linnaeus system to name species, a code that allows a species to give a universal own name, recognized worldwide. The method, surprisingly simple but effective, is still used.

The system, which classifies living beings according to their gender and species, was of great help for the naturalists and scientists of the nineteenth century who, in full rise of colonialism, launched to explore Africa and Oceania, two continents with a biodiversity never seen by Europeans.

In fact, the amount of new species discovered in these exotic places caused that on many occasions the same species was described at the same time by different naturalists, an issue that was solved in a way as simple as the method itself: by order of arrival, the first one that describes it, assigns it a name (‘principle of priority’).

In this context, it was common for new species to receive names of people (eponyms), in honor of discoverers, dignitaries, benefactors or simply friends, a custom that still remains today.

But given the characteristics of colonialism, numerous species ended up wearing names that represented the most negative face of the system, such as those dedicated to the British Cecil Rhodes (a supremacist ruthless who even gave his name to a country, Rhodesia), or George Hibbert, a botanist who had slaves and was a great opposition of the abolition.

Since then, scientists have continued to classify species with names of people, some as offensive as the beetles of Hitler and Cortés (by the Spanish conqueror), or simply frivolous, such as Beyoncé’s bee or the condor, spider, mollusk and Messi’s lizard.

Reform an unnecessary practice

In recent years, several groups of researchers have publicly criticized this “unnecessary” practice, for understanding that, at the outset, the right to be appointed for their incalculable heritage is appointed.

The first to denounce it were the Australians Timothy Andrew Hammer and Kevin Thiele, who proposed to the scientific community to change the nomenclature codes of the species to replace those that would carry out words, expressions or names “offensive or inappropriate”, and create a commission in charge of the review.

The proposal put on the table a debate that would penetrate many scientists, although it also had detractors.

In March 2023, an article in Nature Ecology & Evolution signed by Patricia Guedes, from the University of Porto (Portugal), and by scientists from seven countries, claimed that using names of people to name species was “unnecessary and objectively difficult to justify”, and proposed to stop doing so.

Four reasons wielded: first, that many responded to white and high -class European men; Second, that replacing them would not alter scientific history because that name would remain as a synonym; Third, that in order to avoid sterile debates, it was better to remove them all (instead of reviewing them one by one) because a name that for some can be harmless to others can be offensive; And, fourth, that adducting technical or economic difficulties to avoid review was not sufficient reason not to amend the situation.

According to calculations of some taxonomes, the proposal would mean about 20 percent of scientific names.

But while the American ornithological society announced that, in an effort to “correct the errors of the past”, it would change the common names of the American and Canadian birds with the name of a person, the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (responsible for the World Zoological Code) did not consider the possibility of renowing the Hitler beetle.

An international debate

The proposal of Guedes generated a flood of articles for and against published in Nature Ecology and Evolution and in the Researchgate portal.

One of them, signed by Latin scientists, defended that, although most of the Latin American tropical species carried European eponyms, now they are the ‘non -European’ those who are naming species, so, revoke the measure, would redieve them again.

And an article published in Bioscience, led by Spanish botanists and supported by 1500 scientists, stated that the function of the biological nomenclature “is not to repair the social imbalance”, and began to transfer the debate to the International Botany Congress, which every six years reviews its code and that last summer was held in Madrid.

For these scientists, in addition, eliminating the names of people would endanger taxonomic stability and hindered research “even if they were looking for synonyms, that there are not always. Review now all the names of the past would be too disruptive,” summarizes Efe Sonia de Molino, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University (URJC) and signer of Bioscience’s text.

The new ‘Madrid’ code

Finally, in July 2024, the 3,000 attendees in Congress in charge of discussing and voting the proposals collected from the previous Congress agreed to reject the scientific names of plants, algae and fungi with insulting connotations published as of January 1, 2026 (to avoid “enormous retroactive work”), and create a committee to review the new names.

With an exception, eliminate the term ‘Kaffir‘(Cafre in English) and its referrals (Cafra, Cafffra, Caforum and Cafrum), which for decades have been used to designate many Africa plants. The Congress agreed to eliminate the ‘C’ of the names and leave them in Afra, Afcha, Aforum and Afrum, a measure that affected some forty species.

The proposal to stop using eponyms to name species was rejected by a lazy majority of attendees.

And to improve communication, it was decided that names will not be allowed with less than two letters or more than 30, so as not to repeat cases such as the orchid Lepanthes or the species Ornithagalum adsepotentrionesvergentuluma.

The Madrid Code will be in force as of 2026 and the next opportunity to propose changes will be in the South Africa Congress (2029). We will see what is decided then.