Contents

List Of Organisms Named After PeopleEdit

Across biology, a surprisingly large number of organisms bear names that honor people—founders of science, explorers, patrons, teachers, and occasionally family or colleagues of the describer. These eponyms appear in both genus and species names, and they are formed in the traditional Latin style used in taxonomy: species epithets often end in -i or -ii for men, -ae for women, and -orum for groups, with the genus name carrying its own history. The practice is part of a long, continuity-rich tradition in biology that rewards discovery and mentorship with a lasting, if sometimes contested, form of recognition.

Naming conventions are governed by established codes that seek stability and clarity. In zoology, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) maintains the rules for naming animals, while the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) covers plants, algae, and fungi. Within these frameworks, eponyms are common and often illustrative of the discipline’s history. They are not random tributes; they reflect the people who contributed to science, exploration, or the environment in which a given organism was discovered. At the same time, the use of people’s names in scientific terms has generated debates about whose legacies deserve commemoration and how to handle names associated with controversial figures.

Notable eponyms and representative examples

Below are representative examples of organisms named after people, illustrating the range of individuals honored and the kinds of organisms involved. In each case, the current scientific name is linked to the article for the organism, and the person honored is linked to their biographical page.

  • Charles Darwin and family

  • Alexander von Humboldt

  • Spencer Fullerton Baird

  • Georg Wilhelm Steller

  • Louis/Charles Lucien Bonaparte

  • Carl Linnaeus (Linnaeus)

    • Linnaea borealis — a plant whose genus Linnaea honors Carl Linnaeus. The practice of naming genera after Linnaeus is a reminder of his foundational role in taxonomy; see Linnaea borealis and Carl Linnaeus.

  • Theodor Escherich

  • John Edward Gray

    • Mesoplodon grayi — Gray’s beaked whale. An example of a marine mammal named after the English zoologist John Edward Gray; see Mesoplodon grayi and John Edward Gray.

  • Hermann Schlegel

  • Georg Wilhelm Steller (continued)

    • Cyanocitta stelleri and Hydrodamalis gigas are two additional, well-known instances that illustrate the breadth of the practice across vertebrates and extinct taxa.

Other notable examples that illustrate the breadth of the practice include organisms in the same tradition whose epithet commemorates a person who contributed to science, exploration, or natural history. The exact scientific name connects to the person in a way that is easy for researchers to trace, and the person’s name often serves as a mnemonic of prior discovery and collaboration.

Controversies and debates

Like any long-standing tradition, naming organisms after people has its critics and its defenders. The core controversy centers on whether eponymous names continue to serve science and public understanding or whether they reward or preserve legacies that are morally or culturally questionable.

  • Tradition and continuity versus moral re-evaluation

    • Proponents of preserving eponyms argue that names provide continuity in the scientific record, honor long-standing contributions, and reflect the history of discovery. They contend that taxonomic stability matters for researchers who rely on consistent names in literature, databases, and collections.
    • Critics argue that some honorees were involved in morally troubling activities or colonial enterprises, and that continuing to honor them in the nomenclature perpetuates those legacies in a way that science should avoid. They contend that renaming can help decenter problematic histories and shift public memory toward more inclusive, local, or neutral naming conventions.

  • Practical considerations and scope of renaming

    • Opponents of broad renaming campaigns point to the disruption caused for researchers, educators, and citizen scientists who rely on the long-standing names. They argue that renaming can generate confusion and require widespread changes to literature, databases, museum labels, and educational materials.
    • Advocates for renaming emphasize the symbolic value of removing or qualifying names that celebrate figures associated with oppression, exploitation, or crimes. They often propose replacing or supplementing eponymous names with neutral or locally meaningful alternatives, or restricting changes to cases where the honoree’s conduct has become widely regarded as indefensible.

  • How formal processes respond

    • The codes of nomenclature (ICZN and ICN) provide stability but do not compel the removal of existing names. Changes are typically conservative and require broad discussion within the scientific community. In some cases, new names may be proposed; in others, common usage may introduce alternative common names that help the public discuss the organism without altering the formal Latin name.
    • Critics of rapid or politically driven renaming argue that renaming should come from broad consensus, not from expedient cultural pressure. They maintain that science benefits from stable terminology, while social debates can and should occur in other forums.

  • From a practical, tradition-minded perspective

    • A seasoned observer might argue that many eponyms already reflect collaborative, transnational scientific work. The same individual may be honored by multiple taxa across time, pointing to a tapestry of history rather than a single, monolithic moral judgment. In this view, the enduring names serve as a historical record of scientific networks, mentors, and patrons who helped advance knowledge, even if some of them were flawed by today’s ethical standards.
    • If renaming occurs, supporters of a cautious approach suggest focusing on providing widely used common names or creating deliberate, transparent processes for proposing and evaluating changes. The aim would be to preserve scientific clarity while addressing concerns about the ethics of memory in science.

  • Contemporary debates and their limits

    • The conversation around eponyms intersects broader debates about how societies remember the past. Critics who push for renaming often emphasize the moral dimension of memory, while some science communicators resist politically charged naming changes, arguing that the science itself should stand apart from social controversies.
    • In practice, many institutions favor a measured approach: retain the formal eponymous names for scientific precision, while promoting education about the history of discovery and the individuals involved. In parallel, there is growing interest in publicly accessible explanations of who the names commemorate, which can help readers understand the historical context without requiring name changes.

See also