Over the past couple of weeks I have written articles in support of the scientific community. Often dismissed or outright ignored for offering theories based on Observations, rooted in what some define as radical thought, scientists face criticism and disdain almost every time they release data that questions traditional thinking. It is sometimes a thankless and stressful job that offers more aggravation than rewards. I find it difficult to fault a group of people who are trying to better the world we live in by making us more aware of how it works. For those of you that read my articles regularly, it will come as no surprise that although I may find it difficult, it is by no means impossible for me to do so, especially when biologists, zoologists, entomologists, taxonomists and a few other "ists" are naming newly discovered or unnamed species after celebrities.
You would think, my fellow Observers, that this task of uniquely naming life forms genus and species would be a scientific job met with a serious attitude when describing (in Latin) a particular species characteristics, location or other biological data. One would think..... until you realize that there is a species of horsefly named scaptica beyoncea because the Australian scientists that discovered it thought the fly looked "bootylicious".....so they named it after Beyoncé, proclaiming it the "All time diva of flies". The fly must be so proud. No word yet on what the former Destiny Child thinks. Knowles is not alone in the insect naming category, by no means at all. Follow this research logic... if you can, my loyal reader. An entomologist in Wyoming named a wasp aleiodes shakirae. The wasp lays it's eggs inside a caterpillar host that causes the host to squirm like a "bellydancer" ....which reminded him of the song Hip's Don't Lie.... that led him to Shakira.... yeah.... that's scientific!
As far as singers are concerned, don't feel left out guys. Jaggermeryx naida is an extinct hippopotamus who is named after Mick Jagger because anthropologists thought it may have had sensuous lips. They haven't commented on whether or not they thought it had his moves. Agra schwarzeneggeri was named after Ahhhnold for the developed bicep looking middle legs of this beetle variety. Gaga is a genus of ferns named after Lady Gaga who also has a wasp and a prehistoric mammal that share her moniker. Sylvilagus palustris hefneri is a rabbit named after Hugh Hefner. A yeti crab discovered in 2012 that scientists noted had an unusually hairy chest, dubbed it the "Hoff" crab, after David Hasselhoff. Rumor has it he likes the notion of a crab named after him almost as much as he likes Cumberland Farms coffee and hamburgers.
Although this practice was unbeknownst to me, apparently it has been happening for quite some time. Wikipedia has an incomplete list of over 40 pages dedicated to celebrity and famous persona named species. Ozzy and Prince Charles (above) both have their own frogs. Pink Floyd has a spider. Obama has a bird, spider, lichen and fish named for him. The Grateful Dead have a fly. All the members of Queen have a damesfly assigned to them. Frank Zappa seems to be a favorite among species namers. He has a jellyfish, bacterium, rodent, plant, fish, spider, fly and a snail to his credit. Even Pope John Paul II has a beetle namesake. With over 2 million species named thus far and 28 million without any scientific designation, it appears we will not see the end of this ridiculous practice for a while. A moss for Dolly Parton?....Really?...C'mon! I guess it has something to do with the fact that it thrives in mountains. For as much as logic has failed this process, as far as I'm concerned it also falls short on consistency. Even something that would make a certain amount of sense to me doesn't ring any bells with these people. My research into this matter uncovered absolutely no beetles named after John, Paul, George or Ringo. It may be hard to believe, but the curator of coleoptera (beetles) at the Smithsonian Museum claimed "You really have to use your imagination" when describing the task of naming species. I guess so.... as well as making crap up! Associate professor at Dowling College, Christopher Boyko admits to trying to "create" pleasing, Latin sounding names for unnamed species. According to experts, the easiest way to "Latinize" a celebrity name is to add an "i" or an "ae" to the end of it. This is science? Unbelievable! Sounds like the species classification equivalent of the banana name game to me.
What escapes me in all this celebrity name play is why don't these researchers go all they way? Why stop at just the cutesy variants of celebrity comparison to species of life science? Why not point out the ugly side of animals reflected in mankind? For example, when discovering a species that sexually attacks it's young of the same sex, why not call it pedophilus jacksoni? You could make a case for an animal that consumes it's own kind being classified as canniballus dahmeri, couldn't you? What about naming an insect that attacks it's siblings duggari incestus? We could call an organism that blindly kills others as murderus atkinsae or a monkey that can't stop chattering nonsense from the tress trumpi dumbassus. Not only can you make an argument for the stupidity of this procedure, you can see how easy it is. I'm not a scientist and I can do this all day!
Scientific classification has even fallen into the depths of the root of all evil. Names of species found by scientists, organizations and universities have been sold and auctioned off to raise money for their institutions. Not all taxonomists are keen on the system of celebrity naming or the selling of species classification to the highest bidder. They feel it adds to the commercialization of science, cheapens the professionalism of their occupation as well as hindering scientific progress. It seems that money indeed has the ability to taint all it touches. Not to mention vanity and sloth.
The point is that science is not supposed to be about money. It's not supposed to be easy and it certainly is not supposed to revolve around a single person or their ego. Science is simply a vehicle that mankind utilizes to advance our knowledge and it is to be shared with all. Making procedures whimsical or simplified lessens the integrity of its claims. Science has a hard enough time being widely accepted among society. When scientist themselves belittle the way they label their findings it makes it more difficult for people to subscribe to their postulations. We show admiration, deserving or not, for our celebrities enough by naming roads, drinks, sandwiches, schools, ice cream, candy bars and even towns after them. Although they add to or lessen our culture through their type of entertainment or occupation, this by no means make them worthy of being immortalized in the fossil record. Strictly an Observation. If you'll excuse me, I'm bidding on a crustacean.
View my other articles, posts and Like Strictly an Observer on Facebbok
View all Strictly an Observer articles on Tumblr
Strictly an Observer is on Pinterest
Strictly an Observer is on My Space
Follow Strictly an Observer on Twitter
Follow Strictly an Observer on Google+
Contact Strictly an Observer. I welcome all correspondence.
