An official website of the United States government
The 3i World Auchenorrhyncha database (http://dmitriev.speciesfile.org) is being migrated into TaxonWorks (http://taxonworks.org) and comprises nomenclatural data for all known Auchenorrhyncha taxa (leafhoppers, planthoppers, treehoppers, cicadas, spittle bugs). Of all those scientific names, 8,700 are unique genus-group names (which include valid genera and subgenera as well as their synonyms). According to the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, a properly formed species-group name when combined with a genus-group name must agree with the latter in gender if the species-group name is or ends with a Latin or Latinized adjective or participle. This provides a double challenge for researchers describing new or citing existing taxa. For each species, the knowledge about the part of speech is essential information (nouns do not change their form when associated with different generic names). For the genus, the knowledge of the gender is essential information. Every time the species is transferred from one genus to another, its ending may need to be transformed to make a proper new scientific name (a binominal name). In modern day practice, it is important, when establishing a new name, to provide information about etymology of this name and the ways it should be used in the future publications: the grammatical gender for a genus, and the part of speech for a species. The older names often do not provide enough information about their etymology to make proper construction of scientific names. That is why in the literature, we can find numerous cases where a scientific name is not formed in conformity to the Rules of Nomenclature. An attempt was made to resolve the etymology of the generic names in Auchenorrhyncha to unify and clarify nomenclatural issues in this group of insects. In TaxonWorks, the rules of nomenclature are defined using the NOMEN onthology (https://github.com/SpeciesFileGroup/nomen).
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on February 1, 2026
Gender in mineral names
Abstract Minerals are the fundamental constituents of Earth, and mineral names appear in scientific literature for disciplines including geology, chemistry, materials science, biology, and medicine, among others. Choosing a name is the full responsibility of the authors of new mineral proposals submitted to the International Mineralogical Association (IMA). Scientific nomenclature and its traditions have evolved over time, and consequently, mineral names track changes in the landscape of mineralogy with respect to language, technology, and culture. To evaluate these changes, the namesake information for all 5896 minerals approved by the IMA or “grandfathered” into use as of December 2022 was recorded and categorized within a workable database. The compiled information yields diverse insights into the intersection of science and culture and could also be used to project future trends. In this study, we used the name database to investigate gender diversity among mineral eponyms. More than half (ca. 54%) of all mineral species are named after people, the identities of whom are largely a reflection of the people that have historically been involved, in one way or another, in the geosciences and the mining industry. Of the 2738 people with minerals named for them, ∼6.1% are (interpreted to be) women. Nearly all minerals named for women were named during the last 60 years, although the growth rate in the year-on-year percentage of women among new mineral namesakes has slowed since about 1985. If current and historical trends hold, our model predicts that women will not comprise more than about 10.35% of newly established mineral namesakes in future years. The representation of women among mineral namesakes also differs starkly among countries. For example, Russians comprise 43.11% of women with minerals named for them but account for only 15.12% of all eponyms. However, there are additional disparities beyond the proportions of namesakes. For scientists who were alive when a mineral was named for them, women averaged 3.74 years older than men when evaluated over the same timespan (1954–2022). These results demonstrate that gender-based disparities are imprinted into current mineral nomenclature and indicate that gender parity among new mineral namesakes is impossible without unprecedented changes in the upstream demographics that are most likely to affect naming trends.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10647920
- Editor(s):
- Hummer, Daniel
- Publisher / Repository:
- Mineralogical Society of America
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- American Mineralogist
- Volume:
- 110
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 0003-004X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 181 to 188
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Gender disparities in STEM remain a pressing concern, especially in engineering, where women receive only 20% of undergraduate degrees. This concise research paper delves into the potential influence of altering the name of an undergraduate research program on attracting female applicants. Specifically, we examine how changing the program's name from "Nanotechnology Research with a Focus on Community College Students" to "Climate and Sustainability Research in Nanotechnology and Electrochemical Devices for Community College Students" affects the gender balance among applicants, with the other program components remaining the same. Our research reveals a notable shift in the applicant pool following the program's name change. Initially, we had fewer female applicants in the “Nanotechnology Research with a Focus on Community College Students” program than male students. However, following the transition to "Climate and Sustainability," the number of female applicants increased, equaling almost all male applicants. To assess the statistical significance of the observed difference, we conducted the two-sample proportion test, which resulted in a p-value of 0.233, yielding insufficient evidence of a significant difference in the proportions of female applicants between the two programs. However, an intriguing finding emerged when we focused exclusively on the "Nanotechnology" program applicants. We expect both male and female applicants to be 50% each. However, the proportion of female applicants in this group did not align with the expected 50/50 gender distribution and yielded a p-value of 0.042, suggesting that female applicants in the "Nanotechnology" applicant pool were significantly lower than 50%. While the overall comparison between the two program names did not yield statistical significance, a deeper analysis within the "Nanotechnology" program uncovered a significant difference. These findings underscore the importance of program nomenclature as a factor in promoting gender diversity in STEM education and creating a more inclusive environment for underrepresented groups in the field.more » « less
-
Using the EconLit dissertation database and large-scale algorithmic methods that identify author demographics from names, we investigate the connection between the gender of economics dissertators and dissertation topics. Despite stagnation in the share of women among economics PhDs in recent years, there has been a remarkable rise in gender-related dissertations in economics over time and in many subfields. Women economists are significantly more likely to write gender-related dissertations and bring gender-related topics into a wide range of fields within economics. Men in economics have also substantially increased their interest in gender-related topics.more » « less
-
While the severe underrepresentation of women and non-binary people in open source is widely recognized, there is little empirical data on how the situation has changed over time and which subcommunities have been more effectively reducing the gender imbalance. To obtain a clearer image of gender representation in open source, we compiled and synthesized existing empirical data from the literature, and computed historical trends in the representation of women across 20 open source ecosystems. While inherently limited by the ability of automatic name-based gender inference to capture true gender identities at an individual level, our census still provides valuable population-level insights. Across all and in most ecosystems, we observed a promising upward trend in the percentage of women among code contributors over time, but also high variation in the percentage of women contributors across ecosystems. We also found that, in most ecosystems, women withdraw earlier from open-source participation than men.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)“What is crucial for your ability to communicate with me… pivots on the recipient’s capacity to interpret—to make good inferential sense of the meanings that the declarer is able to send” (Rescher 2000, p148). Conventional approaches to reconciling taxonomic information in biodiversity databases have been based on string matching for unique taxonomic name combinations (Kindt 2020, Norman et al. 2020). However, in their original context, these names pertain to specific usages or taxonomic concepts, which can subsequently vary for the same name as applied by different authors. Name-based synonym matching is a helpful first step (Guala 2016, Correia et al. 2018), but may still leave considerable ambiguity regarding proper usage (Fig. 1). Therefore, developing "taxonomic intelligence" is the bioinformatic challenge to adequately represent, and subsequently propagate, this complex name/usage interaction across trusted biodiversity data networks. How do we ensure that senders and recipients of biodiversity data not only can share messages but do so with “good inferential sense” of their respective meanings? Key obstacles have involved dealing with the complexity of taxonomic name/usage modifications through time, both in terms of accounting for and digitally representing the long histories of taxonomic change in most lineages. An important critique of proposals to use name-to-usage relationships for data aggregation has been the difficulty of scaling them up to reach comprehensive coverage, in contrast to name-based global taxonomic hierarchies (Bisby 2011). The Linnaean system of nomenclature has some unfortunate design limitations in this regard, in that taxonomic names are not unique identifiers, their meanings may change over time, and the names as a string of characters do not encode their proper usage, i.e., the name “Genus species” does not specify a source defining how to use the name correctly (Remsen 2016, Sterner and Franz 2017). In practice, many people provide taxonomic names in their datasets or publications but not a source specifying a usage. The information needed to map the relationships between names and usages in taxonomic monographs or revisions is typically not presented it in a machine-readable format. New approaches are making progress on these obstacles. Theoretical advances in the representation of taxonomic intelligence have made it increasingly possible to implement efficient querying and reasoning methods on name-usage relationships (Chen et al. 2014, Chawuthai et al. 2016, Franz et al. 2015). Perhaps most importantly, growing efforts to produce name-usage mappings on a medium scale by data providers and taxonomic authorities suggest an all-or-nothing approach is not required. Multiple high-profile biodiversity databases have implemented internal tools for explicitly tracking conflicting or dynamic taxonomic classifications, including eBird using concept relationships from AviBase (Lepage et al. 2014); NatureServe in its Biotics database; iNaturalist using its taxon framework (Loarie 2020); and the UNITE database for fungi (Nilsson et al. 2019). Other ongoing projects incorporating taxonomic intelligence include the Flora of Alaska (Flora of Alaska 2020), the Mammal Diversity Database (Mammal Diversity Database 2020) and PollardBase for butterfly population monitoring (Campbell et al. 2020).more » « less
