Could an Animal’s Name Save It from Extinction?

Taxonomists name a new snail after the cement company that holds its fate

If all goes according to plan, cement and concrete maker Lafarge will continue turning a limestone hill in Malaysia into a quarry. It would be business as usual for Lafarge, but bad news for Charopa lafargei, a recently discovered snail that lives only on that hill. The gastropod's name is no coincidence. For the first time, taxonomists have named a species after the entity that could cause the creature's extinction.

Whether this guilt trip will work remains to be seen (Lafarge has said it will avoid certain areas of the hill), but there is something to be said for choosing the name of a species carefully. Research has shown that an animal's common name can affect whether people want to protect it. In a 2012 study, George Mason University researchers found that species with patriotic or cute names are more likely to inspire public support for their conservation. The team that described the snail hopes that the same principle will help persuade Lafarge to protect C. lafargei.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

What's in a Name?

Survey respondents deemed an animal with a positive name (green) more conservation-worthy than its negatively named self (red).

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American