The power of naming: shorter and simpler species names draw more attention

If youve ever complained about a species name thats a mouthful--say, the soldier fly Parastratiosphecomyia stratiosphecomyioides or the myxobacterium Myxococcus llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochensis--youre in very good company. But could the readability of binomial scientific names cause more than complaints? Could it influence how much species are studied and talked about? We examined a random sample of 3,019 species names spanning 29 phyla/divisions. We tested whether name length and reading difficulty are associated with species representation in the scientific literature (measured via literature mentions) and their visibility to the public (measured via Wikipedia pageviews). Both species name traits showed significant negative relationships with literature mentions and Wikipedia reads. Increasing name length from 10 to 30 characters is associated with a 66% decrease in expected mentions and a 65% decrease in Wikipedia reads, while shifting from the most to the least readable name in the dataset corresponds to 53% and 76% decreases. These patterns are consistent with something familiar: the fickleness of human attention, responding to features of the world that are far from rational. While creativity in naming is a cherished part of taxonomy, a touch of orthographic restraint may ultimately benefit both science and the species themselves--especially among understudied uncharismatic taxa.