Scientists who discover new animal species get to name them, but those names only become official if they follow a strict set of international rules. There is no single person or committee that decides what an animal is called. Instead, a global system governs how names are proposed, formatted, and accepted, ensuring every species on Earth has one unique scientific name recognized worldwide.
The System Behind Every Animal Name
The naming of animals is governed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), an organization founded in 1895. The ICZN publishes and periodically revises the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, a rulebook that applies to every organism treated as an animal. The Commission doesn’t name animals itself. It maintains the standards that everyone else must follow, and it steps in to settle disputes when names conflict or cause confusion.
The naming system itself dates back to the 18th-century Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus. He introduced binomial nomenclature, a two-part Latin name combining genus and species, similar to how a first name and surname identify a person. Before Linnaeus, species descriptions were unwieldy. The honeybee, for example, had been formally called Apis pubescens, thorace subgriseo, abdomine fusco, pedibus posticus glabis, untrinque margine ciliatus. Linnaeus simplified it to Apis mellifera. He also coined Homo sapiens for humans, grouping us among the primates alongside apes.
Latin was the shared language of science at the time, so Linnaeus used it to keep names stable across countries and languages. That convention stuck. Today, all scientific animal names are still Latinized, even when they’re built from Greek roots, personal names, or place names.
Who Actually Gets to Choose the Name
The person or team that formally describes a new species in a scientific publication chooses its name. In practice, this is usually a taxonomist, a biologist who specializes in classifying organisms. But field biologists, museum researchers, and even citizen scientists involved in a discovery can play a role. The key requirement is that someone must write a formal species description and publish it in a recognized scientific outlet, whether a traditional print journal or an online-only publication.
That description needs to include enough detail for other scientists to distinguish the new species from every known relative. It typically covers the animal’s physical features, where it was found, and how it differs from closely related species. A physical specimen, called a “type specimen,” is usually deposited in a museum collection so future researchers can verify the identification.
One critical rule is priority of publication. If two researchers independently discover and name the same species, the name that was published first is the valid one. Any later names become synonyms and are discarded. This rule has been in place for over a century and prevents the same animal from accumulating multiple official names.
What the Name Must Look Like
Every valid animal name has two parts. The first word identifies the genus, a broader group of related species, and is always capitalized. The second word identifies the specific species within that genus and is always lowercase. Both are italicized. So the gray wolf is Canis lupus: Canis for the genus that includes wolves, dogs, and coyotes, and lupus for the wolf specifically.
Beyond formatting, the ICZN Code sets out rules for what makes a name “available,” meaning officially valid. The name must be published in a work that is publicly accessible and permanent. It must be clearly intended as a new scientific name, not just a casual mention. And it must be accompanied by a description or diagnosis that differentiates the species.
There has also been a push toward mandatory digital registration. ZooBank, an open-access registry maintained by the ICZN, was proposed as a required step for all new animal names. The goal is to create a single, searchable database of every animal name ever published. For names published in online-only journals, ZooBank registration is already required for the name to be considered valid.
Creative Freedom and Its Limits
Scientists have considerable creative latitude when picking species names. Names can describe the animal’s appearance, behavior, or habitat. They can reference the place the animal was found. And they can honor people, a practice called using “patronyms” or “eponyms.” A species might be named after a mentor, a field assistant who helped find it, a family member, or a public figure like David Attenborough, who has dozens of species bearing his name.
The one widely recognized taboo is naming a species after yourself. It’s not technically prohibited by the Code, but the scientific community considers it poor form. Linnaeus himself weaponized naming conventions. When a rival named Johann Siegesbeck criticized his classification methods, Linnaeus named a genus of small, unattractive weeds Sigesbeckia in response.
The ICZN’s Code of Ethics states that no author should propose a name likely to give offense on any grounds. But this is a recommendation, not an enforceable rule. The Commission explicitly notes it has no power to investigate or rule on alleged breaches of ethics. This has fueled a growing debate in taxonomy. A widely discussed paper in Nature Ecology & Evolution argued that eponyms have no place in modern biological nomenclature, citing the colonialism, racism, and sexism embedded in many species names, particularly those given to African species during the colonial era. Many taxonomists pushed back, wanting to preserve the tradition of honoring collaborators and benefactors. Others pointed out that even well-intentioned naming choices can be exclusionary if the system consistently honors the same narrow group of people.
Common Names vs. Scientific Names
Most people know animals by their common names: robin, blue whale, house cat. These names have no formal governing body. They arise from everyday language, vary between regions and languages, and can refer to completely different animals depending on where you are. A “robin” in North America is a thrush, while a “robin” in the United Kingdom is a small flycatcher-like bird. They are not closely related.
Some organizations do standardize common names within specific groups. Ornithological societies publish official common-name lists for birds, and similar efforts exist for mammals, fish, and butterflies. But these lists carry no legal or scientific authority in the way the ICZN Code does. They’re practical tools for communication, not formal nomenclature.
Who Names Domestic Breeds
Domestic animal breeds operate under an entirely separate system. Breed names are determined by breed registries and kennel clubs, not by taxonomists. Dog breeds, for example, are recognized by organizations like the American Kennel Club and the Fédération Cynologique Internationale. There are roughly 400 dog breeds recognized worldwide today, though the exact number varies by registry.
Cat breeds follow a similar pattern, with organizations like The International Cat Association and the World Cat Federation deciding which breeds to recognize. The power of selective breeding to produce distinct cat breeds has only been applied seriously within the last 200 years, making fancy cat breeds a remarkably recent development compared to the thousands of years humans have kept cats as companions. For both dogs and cats, breeders or breed clubs typically propose new breed names, and the registry decides whether to accept them. There is no connection to the ICZN or to scientific nomenclature. All domestic dogs, regardless of breed, remain Canis lupus familiaris under the zoological system.