In 1937, a brown, eyeless beetle was found in a few caves in Slovenia. The new species was unexceptional apart from one feature. Its discoverer decided to name it after Adolf Hitler. Anophthalmus hitleri has an objectionable sound to modern ears. Nor is it alone. Many species’ names recall individuals or ideas that offend: the butterfly Hypopta mussolinii, for example, while several hundred plant species carry names based on the word caffra which is derived from a racial slur once used in Africa. Similarly Hibbertia, a genus of flowering plants, honours George Hibbert, an English slave owner. As a result, many scientists are pressing for changes to be made to the international system for giving official scientific names to plants and animals to allow the deletion and substitution of past names if they are deemed objectionable. Current taxonomy regulations, which do not allow such changes, must be altered, they say. Other scientists disagree. Arguing over names that some think are unacceptable while searching for alternatives would waste time and create confusion. Species names should remain inviolate once they have been agreed by taxonomists, they argue, and changes should only be allowed if a mistake in designation has been made or an earlier designation is found to have been overlooked. The row now threatens to become a major international dispute. “People have very, very strong opinions one way or the other about this,” said botanist Sandra Knapp, of the Natural History Museum in London. “There’s been a certain amount of shouting about it but we have to discuss issues like this. We cannot avoid them.” As a result, Knapp has arranged for a discussion before voting on the issue occurs at the next International Botanical Congress, which will be held in Madrid in July 2024. One motion put forward by a group of botanists calls for a committee to be set up with powers to judge whether scientific names for plants that are now considered unacceptable should be suppressed or changed. Plant naming is only a part of the taxonomic controversy, however. Naming animals after racists, fascists and other controversial figures causes just as many headaches as those posed by plants. Last week, the American Ornithological Society announced it was changing the common names of dozens of birds because of their associations with racist or misogynist individuals. And many zoologists want this process to be expanded so they permit changes to be made to a species’ full scientific name. It is proving to be an awkward, controversial process, however. Earlier this year, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) said it would consider the issue and later announced that on careful reflection it would not consider changing its rules. It would not allow species’ names to be altered merely because some researchers found them offensive. Renaming would be disruptive while replacement names could one day be seen as offensive “as attitudes change in the future”, it announced in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. The decision triggered a furious response. “In which other spheres of human endeavour is anything still named after Hitler?” said Estrela Figueiredo, of the Nelson Mandela University in South Africa. “The codes must change and adapt, like the rest of society.” In the wake of the ICZN announcement, the same journal later published a series of editorials from scientists who challenged the commission’s stance. Some criticised the commission because it lacked geographic representation. “It does not include anyone from the African continent,” they wrote. Others accused it of “operating in a vacuum outside of social norms of accountability”. All pressed for the creation of an ICZN ethics committee to review problematic names on a case-by-case basis. The issue has opened up major divisions, the journal’s editor, Jeff Streicher told the Observer. “It has become very clear that we need to have a discussion about this issue right now.” One radical solution has been proposed by scientists who say species should simply not be named after individuals. About 20% of the 1.5m animals that have been classified to date have been named after a specific person. These are known as eponyms and Anophthalmus hitleri provides an example. These should simply be banned from taxonomy, it is argued.