Archives for May 2025

Written by Roger Downie, Froglife and University of Glasgow

Vences and colleagues in October 2024 published a paper describing seven new species of treefrogs in the Madagascan genus Boophis: kirki, picardi, siskoi,  janewayae, archeri, pikei and burnhamae. These are all named after the captains of starships in the TV and film series Star Trek, and chosen because the frogs’ shrill advertisement calls reminded the authors of technical equipment sounds made in the series. Another case of a topical name that may require explaining to future generations (assuming climate change doesn’t destroy human civilisation) is the Panamanian cloud forest frog Pristimantis gretathunbergae (Mebert et al., 2022), named after the courageous Swedish climate campaigner because the authors felt that this frog’s habitat was a key example of a place at serious risk from climate change. These examples raise the question: how are animal names decided? Are there any rules? We’ll look first at scientific names, then in a later article at common names.

The use of Latin binomials for animal scientific names (first, a generic name with a capital initial, followed by a lower case specific, both conventionally in italics or underlined) was set out by Linnaeus in 1758, but took time to establish. The first International Zoological Congress (Paris, 1889) agreed that binomials should be used by all scientists and set about constructing what became the rules of international zoological nomenclature from 1905. After many revisions, these were re-written as the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (first edition, 1961; the 4^th edition of 2000 is currently in force,  superseding all previous versions). Different, although similar, codes apply to algae, fungi and plants.

The Code has many technical details (beyond the scope of this article, but consult the Wikipedia account if you want to know more), but essentially, the aim is to ensure that the names are universal and show continuity e.g. the principle of ‘priority’ states that the correct name for an animal species is the oldest available that has been applied to it.

A relevant example comes from the revision of the species complex long known as Bufo bufo, the common and widespread Eurasian toad. Molecular and morphological analysis by Rucuero and colleagues in 2012 recognised four distinct species: bufo (most of Europe, including north and eastern France), spinosus (North Africa, Iberia, much of France), eichwaldii (Azerbaijan and Iran) and verruccissimus (= the most warty, Caucasus and Turkey). Eichwaldii  is a relatively new name, but the others are valid names used in the past for relevant Bufo populations (spinosus given by Daudin, 1803). In France, the line dividing the bufo and spinosus populations divides the country in half, bufo east and north; spinosus west and south. Arntzen et al. (2014) confirmed that the toad population on Jersey is spinosus, adding a species to the British herpetofaunal list, as a result of the historical accidents that make Jersey British rather than French.

Because the Code uses Latin names, Latin gender and other grammatical rules apply, with the specific names usually acting as adjectives describing an aspect of the generic name (Latin scholars can come into your own here!). However, this can cause confusion when the names used do not have obvious Latin grammatical characteristics.

So, does the scientist naming a newly-discovered species (as opposed to species resulting from the unravelling of a complex previously regarded as one species) have unlimited choice? No: there are some rules: names cannot be rude and insulting (following some 19^th century examples where names were used to get back at opponents); and you cannot name a species after yourself, though you can honour a colleague, who may honour you back..Usually, names are intended to describe some quality of the new species: appearance, behaviour, habitat or geographical location. Humour is allowed: for example, a set of small, round fungus beetles are in the genus Gelae, as G. baen, fish and rol.

When I began researching the habits of frogs and marine turtles in Trinidad and Tobago, I noticed that several species had been originally named by Schneider (1799), so I was intrigued when asked to review an edition of Schneider’s Historiae Amphibiorum where these names originated (Downie, 2022). The book, originally in Latin, has been translated and interpreted into modern English by Bauer and Lavilla, a task of immense scholarship, including copious notes and contemporary illustrations. Schneider was a German scholar and natural historian, post-Linnaeus but pre-Darwin, who based his account on specimens in European museum collections that had been accumulated from around the World. In 1799, the animals we now consider as reptiles and amphibians were still all classed as Amphibia, and Schneider’s book aimed to describe all the then known species (apart from the geckos and chelonians that he had covered in previous works): this came to 70 amphibians and 100 reptiles as we would now class them, a small proportion of the 8000+ and 12000+ we know now. Of the Trinidad species first named by Schneider, Leptodactylus fuscus was originally Rana fusca and has been known under 19 different scientific names so far (Frost, 2025); and the microhylid Elachistocleis ovalis (Rana ovalis in Schneider) is a species whose distribution, naming and relationships are still in dispute (Jowers et al., 2021).

The Linnaean binomial system remains an indispensable tool for research into the vast diversity of living species, but the use of long, sometimes cumbersome, Latin names, especially when altered after taxonomic revisions, does not help in  communication to non-scientists: hence the continuing value of common names.

Acknowledgement

The Wikipedia article on the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature was a key source of the historical information in this article.

References…