Can species naming drive scientific attention? A perspective from plant-feeding arthropods

Abstract

How do researchers choose their study species? Some choices are based on ecological or economic importance, some on ease of study, some on tradition—but could the name of a species influence researcher decisions? We asked whether phytophagous arthropod species named after their host plants were more likely to be assayed for host-associated genetic differentiation (or ‘HAD’; the evolution of cryptic, genetically isolated host specialists within an apparently more generalist lineage). We chose 30 arthropod species (from a Google Scholar search) for which a HAD hypothesis has been tested. We traced the etymologies of species names in the 30 corresponding genera, and asked whether HAD tests were more frequent among species whose etymologies were based on host-plant names (e.g. Eurosta solidaginis , which attacks Solidago ) versus those with other etymologies (e.g. Eurosta fenestrata , from Latin fenestra , ‘window’). Species with host-derived etymologies were more likely to feature in studies of HAD than those with other etymologies. We speculate that the etymology of a scientific name can draw a researcher's attention to aspects of life-history and thus influence the direction of our scientific gaze.

Naming the menagerie: creativity, culture and consequences in the formation of scientific names

“…1 of [28]; data for worms are estimated using combinations of subcategories from [31]. Note that totals are heavily influenced by the spider dataset, which makes up nearly 88% of the total.basis for etymology Aloe parasitic worms (described 2000–2020)spidersphytophagous arthropodstotalsper cent of species (number)per cent of species (number)per cent of species (number)per cent of species (number)per cent of species (number)morphology38.6 (353)20.8 (601)40.5 (19190)32.7 (895)39.1 (21039)geography20.0 (179)19.0 (550)27.2 (12868)11.0 (300)25.7 (3821)habitat/host4.0 (37)21.3 (616)5.8 (2750)26.7 (731)7.8 (4210)eponomy30.4 (278)34.7 (1004)19.4 (9157)15.4 (422)20.2 (10861)other7.4 (68)4.2 (120)7.1 (3360)14.3 (391)7.3 (3939)total100 (915)100 (2891)100 (47325)100 (2739)100 (53870)citation[30][31][28][29]…”

“…We tested the 'reduced classical dominance' hypothesis more broadly, considering the linguistic origin of 1280 species chosen from each of two large, systematic compilations of scientific names: those of Mammola et al [28] for spiders and of Mlynarek et al [29] for phytophagous arthropods (insects and mites). Mammola et al's compilation is close to exhaustive (for known spiders), being taken from the World Spider Catalogue, while Mlynarek et al's compilation represents a small (2739 species in 30 genera) sampling from global biodiversity.…”

“…This may seem a far-fetched hypothesis, but there is strong evidence that it is true in at least one case. Mlynarek et al [29] considered the case of phytophagous arthropods (insects and mites), which are often named in reference to their plant hosts (table 2, fourth column). This is likely at least in part because many, but not all, species have evolved considerable host specialization, feeding on one or a few plant species.…”

“…Which species, of all the possibilities, are studied this way? Mlynarek et al [29] showed that arthropods named after their host are more than twice as likely to be studied as possible cases of HAD. (It was not the case that the species were named because they were known to be specialists-the naming always preceded the HAD tests, often by a century or more).…”

“…The strength of the effect, however, is remarkable. Mlynarek et al's [29] study is the first, to our knowledge, to have investigated the influence of species' names on scientific attention. Given that electronic databases of species names and of our literature are improving, along with the information technology to query them, the time is ripe for further such work.…”