From pioneers to modern-day taxonomists: the good, the bad, and the idiosyncrasies in choosing species epithets of rotifers and microcrustaceans

• Published in: Hydrobiologia 2023-11, Vol.850 (19), p.4271-4282
• Main Authors: Macêdo, Rafael L., Elmoor-Loureiro, Lourdes M. A., Sousa, Francisco Diogo R., Rietzler, Arnola C., Perbiche-Neves, Gilmar, Rocha, Odete
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anthropocene; Aquatic crustaceans; Biodiversity; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Communication; Copepoda; Discrimination; Ecological effects; Ecology; Freshwater & Marine Ecology; Gender; Geography; Human bias; Life Sciences; Morphology; Names; Naming; Primary Research Paper; Rotifera; Scientists; Sex discrimination; Taxonomists; Zoology
• ISSN: 0018-8158; 1573-5117
• DOI: 10.1007/s10750-023-05302-7

In the Anthropocene, scientists have an imperative to prioritize the sharing of scientific knowledge as a fundamental responsibility in fostering collective action. Scientific names are essential in communicating biodiversity, and to maximize their impact, they need to be consistently labeled across all organisms and made accessible to diverse audiences. In our study, we examined the etymological and temporal patterns in naming practices of rotifers and microcrustaceans (cladocerans and copepods). By analyzing a dataset comprising 992 species present in Brazil, but described worldwide since the eighteenth century, we identified various factors influencing specific epithets, including morphology, ecology, behavior, geography, and cultural references, as well as names honoring notable individuals. Our findings revealed that while morphology was the primary basis for etymology (62.1%) in naming rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods, its relative importance has decreased over time. We observed a significant increase in etymologies related to geography and the recognition of influential scientists in the field. Furthermore, our study unveiled a gender bias, with male scientists being more frequently honored with species names (86.4%). In addition to acknowledging the contributions made by taxonomists studying these groups, our study offers valuable insights intended to stimulate reflections on the significance of naming practices in biodiversity research and communication, in line with current social-ecological needs.