Names for sale

[Lammers]

Hey, this has been lots of fun, going over unusual binomials (nice to know
we taxonomists aren't as humorless a bunch as we're often depicted), but we
strayed from the main point:

Is it ethical to accept remuneration in return for the "honor" (such as it
is) of having a species named for you?

Do the ethics of the situation differ depending on the use of the money?
I.e., is it OK to name it "Clermontia richpersonii" if I use the money
to buy a nature preserve, but it would be bad if I used it to but a
Ferrari?

It really is a very appealing idea: generating money for worthy projects
by doing something that, at least from the perspective of the Code, is not
that important (By that I mean that the Code permits names to be formed
in damn near any fashion, even to the point of being "arbitrarily" composed
(Art. 23.2 of ICBN).  The only thing in the Code covering the situation is
non-binding Rec. 20A.1(h), which only applies to genera, which advises that genera
not be dedicated to "persons quite unconnected with botany or at least
with natural science."

Would donating $10,000 to fund botanical research qualify as a "connection"
with botany?

It has been said many many times (usually by administrators) that we must
seek new and creative ways to finance our research.  Surely, this qualifies
as innovative.  And BTW, isn't possible to get a star named after someone
for a fee?

As a botanist, the only problem I see is that new species of plants are so
common (you can't swing a cat without hitting a new species of angiosperm
in much of the tropics), that *our* organism will never fetch much of a
price at auction (except maybe orchids).  Oh well...

Thomas G. Lammers
Department of Botany                    lammers at fmnh.org
Field Museum of Natural History
Chicago IL 60605-2496 USA

"What's wrong with Crabgrass?  It just has a bad name, that's all.  If
it had a cute name, like 'Elfgrass', everybody would like it!"
                                                - H. Simpson