A question about naming in zoology and how it affects science today
Should the scientific names of animals that honor or reflect figures like Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini be changed or kept? The scientific community is not united on this. While some advocate updating names that resemble or honor aggressive historical figures, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the body that governs scientific names, has not supported a broad renaming trend.
The recent debate traces back to the 1930s, when the name Guthöri described a fossil insect that roamed the Earth hundreds of millions of years ago. The fossil was named in homage to a notorious figure, a gesture tied to the political climate of the time. In later years, other scientists proposed new names for related species, sometimes drawing inspiration from controversial figures. These instances include a cave-dwelling beetle with a name linked to a dictator and a Libyan butterfly whose epithet echoed a fascist regime. Such cases illustrate how naming choices can become charged symbols beyond mere taxonomy.
A moth with notable reproductive anatomy named after a controversial figure
These naming decisions extend beyond outright eponymy. A recent project drew public attention by naming a moth with distinctive genitalia neopalpa donaldtrumpi, underscoring how sometimes humor or commentary intersects with taxonomy. The image of the species is depicted in public records and associated with the researcher who described it.
Researchers have long debated whether names tied to particular individuals, regimes, or historical injustices should be revised. The question goes to the heart of how taxa are labeled and what it communicates to science and society. The discussion involves ethical considerations, but also practical concerns about data consistency and global communication in biology.
Many scientists argue that changing a name for ethical reasons can be controversial and difficult. They point to the ICZN’s mandate to protect stability and universality in nomenclature. The names serve as universal labels for taxa, enabling clear data exchange and accurate scientific communication across borders and disciplines. The consensus emphasizes that a stable system supports not only basic biology but also applied fields such as medicine, agriculture, and conservation.
While the Code does not close the door entirely to revisions, it allows replacements only when there is a clear problem with a term that misleads or misidentifies a taxon. The oldest available name for a taxon remains the primary option, unless there are strong, well-justified reasons to change it that align with rules of nomenclature.
Ethical and stability considerations
Approximately 20 percent of all scientific names in use are eponyms—names honoring individuals—and these can be a source of offense. Place-based names also constitute a significant minority and may raise disputes about recognition, geography, or history. The ICZN notes that many existing names are already subject to debate, and changing them merely because they are offensive is not a straightforward task. The goal remains a stable, universal nomenclature that supports open scientific communication rather than political or moral adjudication.
The commission acknowledges that some names may upset segments of society and that attitudes can change over time. Yet it stresses that the primary duty is to maintain a consistent framework for naming living things. Decisions about morality or hostility associated with a name are viewed as subjective and outside the commission’s remit. As a result, a broad, automated policy to remove or substitute names is unlikely to emerge from the ICZN alone.
Still, there is room for targeted action when names are clearly inappropriate or misleading about a taxon’s nature or distribution. If a term inaccurately reflects traits or geography, revisions can be contemplated. In such cases, the change is guided by taxonomic evidence rather than moral judgment, ensuring continued clarity and stability for researchers and practitioners around the world.
The moral debate and practical outcomes
Advocates for changing certain names argue that language matters and that using terms linked to oppression can perpetuate harm. They also point to the broader movement toward inclusive science practices. Critics counter that altering established names risks eroding continuity and data integrity, potentially complicating historical records and long-term research. Some researchers even propose establishing ethics committees to review taxonomic names for appropriateness, separate from the ICZN’s scientific responsibilities.
In parallel, there are examples of ordinary name changes outside strict nomenclature. For instance, shifts in common names for public awareness and acceptance can be more straightforward, as seen in recent changes within scientific communities seeking to reduce stigma. Taxonomists continue to weigh the benefits of keeping historic names against the moral implications they may carry in today’s society.
Looking ahead, some scientists worry about the possibility that future attitudes toward names could prompt new substitutions, creating a cycle of replacements. The balance between honoring historical context and maintaining universal scientific language remains central to ongoing discussions in taxonomy and ethics.
For further reading, see the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society and related discussions on nomenclatural stability and ethics. These sources provide detailed arguments about how the Code strives to balance universality with evolving social norms, and how practitioners can approach any proposed changes responsibly.
The broader takeaway is that scientific names function as essential tools for global understanding. They support rapid communication, reproducibility, and collaborative progress across fields. As attitudes shift, the community continues to seek ways to honor both historical context and contemporary values without compromising the integrity of biological naming systems.