Do Species Receive More Attention When Named After Celebrities?

Abstract

When striving to motivate support for conservation, there is often a bias in focus and funding for some species over others (such as flagship species, because they are attractive and recognisable to the public). However, species’ names can also influence peoples’ attitudes and feelings towards them, and celebrity endorsement can lead to increased audience attention to environmental campaigns. This research aims to explore whether naming a species after a celebrity can increase the amount of attention it receives on Wikipedia. It is hypothesised that: species whose scientific names are etymologically related to celebrities will receive more attention on Wikipedia than their closest relatives who are not named after celebrities; the average daily Wikipedia page views of celebrities will influence the difference in received attention for species named after this celebrity and their closest relatives not named after celebrities; and the taxonomic groups species named after celebrities belong to will influence the difference in attention they receive compared to their closest relatives who are not named after celebrities.

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

“…Blake et al . [81] have shown that species with such names attract more Wikipedia page views than their close relatives with non-celebrity names—with the effect being especially strong in less charismatic taxa such as invertebrates and amphibians, and weaker to undetectable for birds and mammals. Of course, some celebrities are viewed negatively, and the additional attention garnered by species associated with them might not be a good thing (as an analogy, there is some evidence that human sentiment associated with species common names can affect opinions about conservation worth [82]; but see [83,84]).…”