Terminology in ecology and evolutionary biology disproportionately harms marginalized groups

Many participants shared terms that we classified as relating to race, ethnicity, and immigration, including terms related to racist or xenophobic violence, prejudice, or othering. This was the most prevalent theme among participants’ responses, with 60% of participants (n = 201/331) sharing 57 standardized terms classified in this theme (Fig 3). More participants who identified as BIPOC shared terms classified in this theme relative to those identifying as white. Sample terms in this theme included “invasive,” “alien,” and “exotic” to describe species moving to a new habitat and the use of “master/slave” to describe interspecies relationships. Any terms that also related to historical violence (e.g., “master/slave”) were additionally coded in the Historical Violence theme (discussed below). Participants reported that terms in this theme can be harmful because they draw on or evoke discourses related to racist, ethnocentric, and nationalist hierarchies and harms (e.g., those related to enslavement and immigration/nativism). For example, Avani, a BIPOC woman who identifies as LGBTQIA+, shared:

“As ecology and evolutionary biology continues to be a white-dominated field, when people talk about invasive species in North America without being aware of or providing context for how invasive species fit into the larger framework of colonialism and racial capitalism in this land, it can feel triggering and offensive especially for recent immigrants of color (especially Asian immigrants that are often stereotyped as foreign and not belonging). This effect is exacerbated [sic] true when militaristic language is associated with invasive species. The rhetoric around the use of ‘invasive’ without care to these larger contexts can contribute to the ranking of ideal individuals and/or genes in relation to their ability to conform, and recreate instances of racism… I am of South Asian descent living in the US and my family has been told to ‘go back to where you came from’ multiple times in different contexts. I cannot ignore the overlaps with invasive species rhetoric and xenophobia nor can I bypass the ecological impacts of the introduced species that are hugely successful in their new ecosystems.”

Avani’s insights highlight the interplay between scientific language and societal perceptions, particularly how terms such as “invasive species” can inadvertently mirror and perpetuate harmful stereotypes and xenophobic attitudes toward immigrants [39–42,76,77]. Nicole, a BIPOC woman and immigrant, further explained the harm these terms can bring to BIPOC individuals:

“The terms exotic and alien are often used to describe people of colour. They’re derogatory terms.”

Terms related to sex and gender included those associated with gender identity and/or sexual orientation, terms alluding to misogyny, gendered terms used to describe biological processes, and terms relating to sexualized behavior explicitly related to sexual identity and gender. Any terms that related to sexual violence were only coded in the Physical Violence theme (discussed below). Sex and Gender was the second most prevalent theme, with over one-third of participants (38%, n = 125/331) sharing 73 standardized terms categorized in this theme (Fig 3). More participants who identified as transgender, gender non-conforming, Two-Spirit, or questioning shared terms that were coded in this theme relative to participants identifying as women or feminine and men or masculine. The most common terms shared in this theme were “male/female binary,” “gendered terms,” and “hermaphrodite.” Participants considered terms along the “male/female binary” and “gendered terms” harmful and reductive, not only because they essentialized sex and gender, but also because these terms conflated gender with sex—impeding scientific progress in the process [56,78]. For example, moving beyond binary classifications of “sex” in EEB has been found to provide clarifying insights regarding sexual diversity in species, such as white-throated sparrows [71]. Examples like this one can help biologists to confront essentialist misunderstandings about sex and gender that harm marginalized communities and hinder scientific progress [73–75,79]. Terms in this theme can reinforce societal hierarchies and biases against people who identify beyond the gender binary. Carmen, who identified as transgender/genderqueer, LGBTQIA+, from a low-socioeconomic background, and disabled, explained how this kind of harm can occur:

“I’m a nonbinary evolutionary biologist… Describing anatomy, hormones, or chromosomes as inherently ‘male’ or ‘female’ reinforces a bioessentialist view of sex and gender that is actively being used to enact harm on trans communities, and also ignores the complexity of the biological systems at play. Conflation of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ and the term ‘biological sex’ also contribute to the construction of bioessentialist arguments. Treatment of intermediate sexual phenotypes as ‘abnormal’ or ‘disordered’ is part of a long pattern of pathologizing intersex people, and even when applied to nonhumans, can reinforce that bigotry as well as implying a ‘normal’ condition that may not exist in the system in question. Describing nonhuman organisms as ‘transgender’ (or worse, ‘transvestite’) implies specific social identities, and serves to other trans people as oddities by sensationalizing sexual and gender diversity.”

Carmen is sharing that limiting the description of biological features to a “male” or “female” binary can strengthen arguments used to marginalize people who identify beyond the binary. Recognizing that sex attributes can vary significantly and are phenotypically plastic can help us better understand how ecological and evolutionary systems work, combatting biases that can limit the objectivity of EEB research [80]. Moreover, this reductive binary can frame individuals who are intersex as deviant or deficient—or, in Carmen’s words, “oddities.” In fact, participants identified “hermaphrodite” as a particularly harmful term, noting that it is a slur against intersex people. Anabelle, who identified as transgender/genderqueer, LGBTQIA+, an immigrant, and disabled, further expanded on the dangers of conflating sex and gender:

“Using terms that conflate sex (which nonhuman animals often do have) and gender (which non-animals animals do not have, as far as we have the ability to perceive) can just generally make it harder for transgender and nonbinary identities to be seen as real and for trans/nonbinary individuals to be accepted as valid by those around them. In addition, conflating sex and gender reinforces the idea that sex determines gender, which is a similarly harmful understanding.”

In this way, conflating sex and gender can have marginalizing, exclusionary effects. Scientific terminology can thus participate in naturalizing and normalizing the male/female binary and related gender-biased assumptions [81], lending support to harmful policies that point to “science” and “nature” as pretexts for stigmatizing people who are transgender, gender non-conforming, and Two-Spirit [54,62,64]. Relatedly, participants expressed that scientists should be precise in the language used to contextualize traits and that conflating sex and gender inaccurately describes phenomena, which is a disservice to research [78,80].

Terms related to the power and privilege associated with certain geographical regions and place-based belonging (or non-belonging) were placed into the theme Geopolitical Hierarchies. Nearly 37% of participants (n = 122/331) shared a total of 18 standardized terms classified in this theme (Fig 3), with more participants identifying as BIPOC sharing terms than those identifying as white. The terms classified in this theme are distinct from the False Attributions and Erasure theme (see below) in that they allude to perceived hierarchies rather than solely the erasure of non-Eurocentric knowledges, including Indigenous Knowledges. Some of the most common terms in the Geopolitical Hierarchies theme included “citizen” and “New World/Old World.” In EEB, “citizen” is often used in the context of “citizen science,” which is scientific work conducted with the participation of the general public (e.g., [82,83]). A longstanding goal of citizen science has been to make science more inclusive by bridging the gap between academic institutions and the general public (e.g., [83–85]). However, there are ongoing scholarly debates about whether this term can have the opposite effect, excluding individuals who are not designated as “citizens” by the government presiding over where they live (e.g., [32,82,86–89]). Maxwell, a BIPOC first-generation college student from a low-socioeconomic background, explains:

“Citizen science in the United States has been a very problematic term. Citizen is a word that has developed a definition revolving around one’s legal status in the country. Many immigrants and/or people that are undocumented are under the impression that they are not welcome to participate in citizen science programs because they are not US citizens. Furthermore, some individuals feel that they would be reported to ICE, police, etc. because they are not citizens. This is particularly the case with Latine members.”

The idea of situating an individual’s engagement in science within a geographic place can inadvertently create a hierarchy where people may not feel comfortable or safe engaging in science. As Maxwell described, people who are not citizens of the country they are living in may be hesitant to engage in public science research, countering one the main goals of “citizen” science [90–93]. While Maxwell’s perspective is based in a US context, survey participants from other countries shared similar perspectives.

“The concept of ‘New’ versus ‘Old’ world is loaded with colonialism and Eurocentrism. The ‘new’ world was new to the Europeans who colonized, but there were people already living in the Americas prior to it. Talking about a ‘new’ or ‘old’ world negates somehow their recognition as inhabitants of the region, negates the idea of colonization and extraction of materials from these regions, and the recognition of people in the ‘new’ areas as humans who contribute to scientific knowledge.”

As Stefania described, these terms do not recognize the Indigenous Peoples who have lived in these regions for thousands of years. These terms discursively erase Indigenous Peoples, framing the “New World” as a region that was not “discovered” until settlers learned about its existence. Participants shared that this Eurocentric framing prioritizes European perspectives and experiences, while ignoring the contributions and existence of Indigenous Peoples. This framing perpetuates persistent “firsting” narratives that are endemic to settler colonialism [94] and emblematic of colonialist science research [95]—narratives that erase and surplant Indigenous perspectives, strategically undermining Indigenous collective continuance [96] (see also [59,97,98]).

Terms related to historical violence, colonization, invasion, war, and other forms of discriminatory and eliminationist violence (in the past or ongoing), were classified in the Historical Violence theme. Of the participants who listed harmful terms, 34% (n = 113/331) shared terms in this theme for a total of 18 standardized terms (Fig 3). Common terms in this theme include “colonization,” “master/slave,” and “noose,” which have disciplinary-specific uses. For example, the establishment of early successional species on land after a disturbance is often described as “colonization” (by pioneer species, another ode to settler expansion on Indigenous lands). However, “colonization” also describes the historical and ongoing processes of violence, extraction, and domination, whereby settlers seize land and resources through genocidal campaigns against Indigenous communities [96,99]. Many participants shared that applying the term “colonization” to nonhuman animals can normalize and naturalize colonialist violence. Amy, who identified as a woman, LGBTQIA+, an immigrant, and disabled, expressed this sentiment:

“Scientists commonly use the term ‘colonization’ to describe when an organism proliferates in a new (to them) ecosystem, which again invokes European colonialism. Using terms like ‘colonization’ in scientific contexts normalizes them and makes them seem acceptable, thus reducing the amount of power they have in highlighting past and ongoing wrongs still occurring in past/current colonized spaces.”

In EEB, “master/slave” language is often used both to describe computing resources (e.g., “master” data file or repository) and to describe the behavioral social parasitism in insect species that capture other insect species to increase their number of workers. In entomology, the use of “slave” and other terms related to slavery, caste, and race have been used to describe aspects of social insect biology [100]. In recent years, some scientists have suggested alternative terms to harmful ones used to describe insect behavior (e.g., [37,38]), such as “cleptotectonic” in place of “slave-making” [101]. Even so, these alternatives seem still to be the exception, not the rule. In one open-access literature repository, the terms “master” and “slave” were in over 3,500 publications published in more than 900 life science journals from 2000 to 2020, with the use of these terms increasing each year [35]. Participants also noted that field methods are an area where harmful discipline-specific language can occur. For example, the term “noosing” is used to describe the capturing of lizards in herpetology [35]. Many participants shared that terms like “master/slave” and “noosing” can be triggering for BIPOC, because these terms are steeped in histories of racism [33]—particularly, as participants noted, in the ways these terms relate to abhorrent violence against the Black community in the US. Bethany, a woman, notes:

“Noosing to describe capture of lizards or other animals is absolutely intolerable; any association with common methods of murder and assault are a bad idea, let alone one with such a racialized history.”

Terms in the Eugenics and Genetics theme relate to eugenics and associated genetics or phylogenetics concepts that participants deemed harmful, including terms related to developmental hierarchies and to the artificial control of populations and speciation. This theme included 27 standardized terms submitted by 59 participants (18% of all participants; Fig 3). Given that ableist discourse can be fundamentally eugenic in its assumptions and applications, several terms in this theme were also coded in the Ability and Age theme, such as “purity,” “fitness,” and “abnormal,” among others (see [65,66,68,70,102]).

One of the most common terms in the Eugenics and Genetics theme was “primitive,” which is often used in the context of phylogenetics to refer to more ancient or earlier groups. However, “primitive” is too often associated with inferiority and underdevelopment—traits that people in power have long leveraged to justify eugenic efforts to biologically control or eradicate people with disabilities and BIPOC communities, among other minoritized groups (e.g., [103,104]). For example, Armando, who identifies as BIPOC and LGBTQIA+, shared:

“[‘Primitive’] carries a colloquial understanding of ‘less than, less developed, or less evolved’ which mistakenly places the outcome of evolutionary processes on a hierarchy; when discussing species, this leads to the fallacious idea that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. And when further misused by anthropology, it can be weaponized to other non-majority populations or identities and attribute a ‘lower’ or second-class status.”

Using terms like “primitive” to describe traits can invoke discriminatory assumptions about developmental and civilizational hierarchy (e.g., [105,106]). For this reason, in 2007 the Association of Social Anthropologists condemned the use of “primitive” to describe social groups [107]. Along these lines, many participants noted that “primitive” is often used to describe and devalue Indigenous societies, placing them beneath putatively “developed” Western settler colonial cultures. Speaking to a related way that the term “purity” can harbor eugenic connotations and assumptions, Racquel, a BIPOC woman from a low-socioeconomic background and an immigrant, explained:

“As a biracial woman in science I am often informed passively through the language around ‘purity’ and ‘phenotypic preservation’ in this field that my existence is considered anomalous and in some cases just wrong. Many implications around ‘genetic purity’ when discussing preservation of phenotypic traits of species hark back to a time of race science that is still perpetuated by the wrong groups today, this often is at the detriment of the genetic diversity that could be introduced through hybridisation… I find that a lot of our language inadvertently calls to mind that of Nazis and white supremacists. The idea that some things are ‘pure’ and ‘clean’ if they present phenotypically a certain way, whether or not genetic diversity is promoted, can be dangerous.”

Used in this context, terms like “purity” and phenotypic preservation can reinforce the eugenic notion that some phenotypic traits are more desirable than others, and that the mixing of phenotypes—a common phenomenon in nature—is undesirable, even deviant and degenerative [108,109]. For Racquel, these terms have a direct, visceral impact: they send the message that Racquel is impure or “anomalous.” Promoting natural hierarchies premised on phenotypic “purity” not only undermines natural diversity but also echoes eugenic prejudices that underwrite white supremacy [57,108,109]. For Racquel and other participants, such ideas can reinforce barriers to their participation in the field.

Anthropomorphism consists of terms that apply human characteristics, behaviors, and relationships to nonhuman entities. This theme included 26 standardized terms from 57 participants (17% of all participants; Fig 3). A majority of this theme’s terms involved projecting human relationships and sexual practices onto nonhuman entities, as was the case with terms like “harem,” “promiscuity,” and “sexy.” Voicing a concern shared by many participants and shared broadly in the scientific community over the past several decades [110,111], Mara, an LGBTQIA+, BIPOC woman, wrote:

“Some terms related to how we discuss sexual selection, behavior, and social/sexual relationships in animals are harmful because they impose heteronormative, sexist, and binary perspectives onto nonhuman animal systems.”

Mara and others highlight how translating societal constructs onto nonhuman animals can be harmful because doing so reinforces and naturalizes prejudices against marginalized groups. These biases may, in turn, shape where and how scientists choose to describe and investigate existing biological phenomena. For example, in ornithology, there has historically been less research on female bird song [24,112] and female avian endocrinology [113], relative to research on these traits in male birds.

“‘Father/mother’ (and more generally, male/female) in the context in which these terms are casually used but don’t carry adequate context and meaning (most people process these from an anthropocentric stance, and a binary one at that). In most cases, these terms are referring to gamete/offspring production, and in that sense, the term should be explicit: individual[s] can produce a particular gamete type (egg/sperm) and we can describe those roles without ascribing gender-related terms and assumptions. (That is, one can be a father and never donate a gamete; one can donate sperm but be a mother.)”

Hayden’s remarks highlight several important points. First, they call into question whether genetic discussions of sexual reproduction need to adopt language laden with assumptions of heteronormative parental and sexual relationships in humans—particularly when such assumptions are neither accurate nor applicable to biological reproduction, especially in nonhuman animals [74,81,114]. Second, linking parent–child relationships to genetics ignores the possibility of parents who use surrogates or adopt children who do not share their genetic material [75]. And third, defining parental relationships (e.g., “father,” “mother”) in terms of gametes conflates gender with sex—a harmful association described at length in the Sex and Gender theme above.

Terms relating to ableism and ageism, including those alluding to normal, optimum, or expected characteristics, were coded in ability and age. This theme included terms from 16% of participants (n = 53/331) who shared 32 standardized terms (Fig 3). More participants who identified as disabled or immigrants shared terms in this theme relative to non-disabled and non-immigrant participants. Some of the most common terms in this theme were “fitness” and “blind” or “blindness.” Jackson, who is agender, LGBTQIA+, disabled, and an immigrant, describes some of the impacts these kinds of terms can have:

“As a disabled person, I find that society and sometimes colleagues classify me as ‘low fitness’ based on assumptions around my disability. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is thrown around in both research and the public sphere, especially with COVID, to suggest that people like me deserve to die or should not be prioritized when it comes to life saving treatment based on ‘scientific’ reasoning about my life’s worth.”

Jackson’s experience highlights how terms used in evolutionary biology can perpetuate ableism by associating non-disabled traits with evolutionary advantage and disabled traits with evolutionary disadvantage [57]. In doing so, EEB’s discipline-specific language arguably contributes to the broader social narrative that disabled lives are not as valuable as non-disabled lives, which as Jackson describes, can have real-life consequences, including someone’s access to life-saving healthcare [115,116].

Relatedly, EEB terminology also participates in ableist discourse by repurposing language used to describe cognitive or perceptual differences (e.g., “blindness”). For example, “plant blindness” has been widely used to refer to the broad inability of people to see or notice plants, recognize their role in the environment, and appreciate plant diversity and characteristics—thus those with “plant blindness” treat plants as subordinate to animals and disregard their importance [117–119]. Maybelle, who is an LGBTQIA+ woman and disabled, shares an observation that underscores this issue:

“The term ‘blindness’ is often used to describe a lack of awareness of certain organisms in ecology and evolution, but the term equates the disability condition with a negative connotation that could easily be avoided with a change in the language.”

Maybelle calls attention to the problematic nature of using disability as a metaphor in scientific discourse. By using the term “blindness” to signify unawareness or ignorance in an organism, discipline-specific language assigns a host of negative, deficit connotations to disability [120–122]. As an alternative to this ableist metaphor, the term “plant awareness disparity” has been proposed as an alternative term to explain this phenomenon [123].

“Survival of the fittest historically has been used to support eugenics and social Darwinism.”

This phrase has long been wielded beyond its scientific origin to justify eugenics and social Darwinism—ideologies that use discourse about evolution (including “fitness”) as a pretext for imposing prejudicial social hierarchies (see also the Eugenics and Genetics theme above). In this way, “survival of the fittest” has functioned as a rallying cry for exclusionary, discriminatory, and often violent practices and policies aimed at marginalizing or eliminating those deemed “unfit” [57,124].

Eponyms refer to the practice of naming entities after a specific individual. Within EEB, eponyms can be found in the scientific and common names of species, award names, and names of scientific phenomena. Nearly 7% of participants (n = 24/331, Fig 3) submitted 8 standardized terms that were coded in this theme. Participants described specific eponyms used in EEB as harmful because they honor individuals who advocated for racist, eugenicist, setter-colonial, or otherwise problematic views. Specific examples included “Bachman’s sparrow,” “Townsend’s warbler,” “Fisherian runaway,” and “Cuvier’s beaked whale.” Celeste, a non-binary, LGBTQIA+ woman who is a first-generation college student from a low-socioeconomic background, describes how:

“The horrific legacy of Georges Cuvier and his acts against Sarah Baartman persist today through the goose-beaked whale, a specific animal I study. I have made a push to change the common name of the whale to take away power from Cuvier, a man who was responsible for the origins of the sexualization of Black women.”

Celeste and others are calling attention to the ways that EEB, by naming entities after individuals with violent legacies, tacitly communicates acceptance or indifference toward the harmful perspectives and actions of such figures. Pointing to Cuvier, whose participation in scientific racism is well documented (e.g., [125–128]), Celeste reminds us that through its eponyms, the discipline of EEB not only commemorates Cuvier, it helps his legacy live on. By memorializing figures like Cuvier, the discipline’s eponyms send a problematic message to current and future generations of researchers, testifying to the (questionable) values and principles the EEB community chooses to recognize and celebrate. Eponyms thus can alienate and harm members of the community who are directly impacted by the legacies of these individuals.

Relatedly, many participants expressed broader concerns that “eponyms” were largely problematic in and of themselves: The convention of naming natural entities by branding them with the names of the scientists (often Western and men) who “discovered” them arguably mirrors broader colonial and masculinist practices of claiming and naming the natural world (e.g., [129,130]). Eponyms thus can contribute to the further erasure of Indigenous and minoritized ways of knowing. For example, although 95% of newly described bird species are from the Global South, most of these are named after Western scientists [130]. Given the broad range of issues with eponyms, several naturalists and scholars more broadly have argued against using eponyms in common and species names [131–135].

Terms related to physical harm and violence were classified in Physical Violence, with 5% (n = 17/331) of participants providing 7 standardized terms (Fig 3). The most common term shared by participants in this theme was “rape,” and other example terms included “attack.” This theme is distinct from Historical Violence, insofar as Physical Violence encompasses acts of violence not specifically linked to particular historical time periods, events, or ideological movements. Many participants stated that terms in this theme are (at least tacitly) misogynistic. Relatedly, the word “rape” to describe animal mating equates these acts with violent human behaviors [136]—a harmful conceptual slippage similar to those discussed in the Anthropomorphism section above. It is important to note that in the early 1980s, the use of the word “rape” was widely challenged, with “forced copulation” becoming the favored alternative term, with few articles since then referring to “rape” in animals [38,136–139]. Vic, who identifies as a woman/genderfluid and LGBTQIA+, responded:

“‘Rape’ is a term that has been used to describe mating systems in, for example, ducks, in which males attempt to forcibly copulate with females. Because the act of rape in human societies is a violent power play, and not a mating strategy, use of the term rape to describe nonhuman behavior is offensive and inappropriate. Its use also promotes the idea that in nonhuman animals, females are passive and unable to make their own decisions, which may carry over to how humans perceive themselves or other humans. Use of the term in EEB is misogynistic.”

Terms related to incorrect or inaccurate word choices, often in relation to false attributions, were classified in the False Attributions and Erasure theme. About 5% (n = 17/331, Fig 3) of participants submitted 11 standardized terms coded in this theme. Example terms included “pristine” and “discovery/discovered,” which participants noted are often tied to a Eurocentric and Western-centric narrative of “first discoveries” that overlooks and dismisses the role other cultures have had in ecological systems, including Indigenous cultures (see also the Geopolitical Hierarchies theme above). Below, Lexy, an LGBTQIA+ woman, describes how:

“The word ‘discover’ or ‘discovery’ is seen now as a form of erasure of the longstanding, detailed ecological knowledge of Indigenous Peoples’ and cultures.”

Relatedly, other participants shared that the words “discovery” or “discovered” are selectively applied in ways that adopt a Eurocentric perspective on science, treating species or biological phenomena as “discovered” whenever they are first described by Western scientists and publications [140]. This practice can minimize, and even erase Indigenous Knowledges and other marginalized epistemologies, treating Eurocentric contributions to knowledge of the natural world as the whole of science (e.g., [141–143]). Luciana, a BIPOC woman who is a first-generation college student from a low-socioeconomic background and disabled, writes:

“Pristine has colonial origins where Europeans would see the beautiful lab [sic] that was managed by Indigenous people but assumed that Indigenous people had no part in the land management and therefore removed people from the land to be ‘untouched’ and pristine.”

As Luciana notes, describing ecosystems as “pristine” does not give credit to Indigenous communities who have historically cared for ecosystems, often through sophisticated and sustainable practices that have maintained or enhanced biodiversity (e.g., [144–148]). This framing perpetuates the myth of untouched wilderness, erasing evidence of human stewardship that has long shaped these ecosystems [149–152]. By ignoring the contributions of Indigenous peoples, such language reinforces colonial biases and dismisses the value of traditional ecological knowledge.

Terminology relating to religion or other personal belief systems, cultural beliefs, and world views were coded in Belief Systems. This theme was least prevalent, with nearly 4% of participants (n = 12/331 participants) sharing a total of 8 standardized terms (Fig 3). The terms in this theme fall roughly into 2 categories: (1) species common names with religious associations (e.g., “Wandering Jew,” “Jesus Lizard,” and “Jewfish”); and (2) terms related to religious, spiritual, or cultural beliefs unrelated to EEB (e.g., “Gaia,” “Caste,” “Mother Earth,” and “Design”). Notably, several participants shared that using terms that allude to religion or a designer (e.g., God) to describe common names or biological processes makes them uncomfortable. Julian, who is an LGBTQIA+ woman and identifies as disabled, shared concerns about references to the “Jesus lizard,” writing that:

“Jesus is a holy name for me, and I am not comfortable with its casual use in this context.”

The reptiles in question, “common basilisks” and other members of the genus Basiliscus, are sometimes referred to as “Jesus lizards” (or “Jesus Christ lizards”) because they build enough momentum when escaping predators to briefly sprint across bodies of water [153] (see also [154]). Julian’s discomfort highlights a broader ethical concern regarding the use of religious terminology in scientific nomenclature. This practice can be seen by some as disrespectful or irreverent, potentially isolating individuals or communities who hold certain terms sacred.