I hate this idea that some species names are just not compliments. So what, when Gary Larson got a bird louse named after him, was he mistaken to think it was a great honor?
And why is it never big predators that people use as insults, anyway? Nazis are sophisticated primates that murder their own kind, not harmless blind creatures that feed on other insects, let alone do the important work of recycling waste. Are those really so bad they deserve the association?
And no, I don’t think a new type of taxonomy is around the corner. Look at the paper you quoted – it talks about how genomes show more diversity below the level of species, and talks about the importance of formal taxonomic naming and diagnosis for subspecies too. That’s an addition not a replacement.
Well, the first of those are on Linnaeus. And, honestly, since Homo sapiens sapiens is doing the naming, what else is there to expect?
In regard to what we perceive as an insult and what as a compliment, mileage of course varies. Your point is taken, but that does not change the way naming is done. If you are a taxonomist, you have a lot of leeway within the rules of The Code.
And since the code states the priority principle, for the time being the beetle stays A. hitleri.
That can change in the future. But, as I tried to say earlier: taxonomists are a weird bunch, and they generally prefer stability.
I think the main consideration should be whether an identifiable group is being harmed by the Linnaen name being applied. Preference for stability should not be prioritized ahead of the harm caused to others. If there were streets or buildings named after Hitler, there would be justifiable outrage and they would be changed post haste. The only difference I see here is that the average person doesn’t even know that this beetle exists. That’s not a good reason to defend continued use of the name though, since it continues to harm others by celebrating one of history’s biggest mass murderers. This isn’t to say that taxonomists that prefer stability are Nazi sympathisers, but they are exercising their privilege in a way that is harmful to others.
@chenille - my comment wasn’t meant to be dismissive of taxonomic approaches that rely on morphology, and you are more than correct that certain contexts it is hard to talk about MOTU 49875X as opposed to a species with a Linnaen name. However molecular taxonomy and systematics are the primary way in which phylogenetic trees are built nowadays, and transcriptomics and proteomics are providing insight into organism function and evolutionary relationships that can’t be seen under a compound microscope. These advances have also shown that the biological species concept often fails - that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful, for instance, in discussing conservation applications.
If the obscurity of the beetle is the reason for that, you are absolutely right. However, my take is: it isn’t the obscurity. I would bet it is the adherence to The Code. Taxonomist are the bureaucrats of biology, and they are used to interpreting the written word like most bureaucrats: literally, not by its intention.
If the discussion gets some further traction within the community, one major argument against renaming the beetle is that this would create a precedent for further revisions of names based on opinions about the suitability of an already established name.
That discussion would be very interesting indeed to observe, but I wouldn’t want to be part of it even if someone paid me for it.
