Opinion Needless controversy over naming of a spider species begs the question: What’s so bad about arachnids, anyway?

Luckily for those who recently objected to the naming of a spider species after a community icon, arachnophiles are a peaceful lot. They won’t, for instance, beat their chests over the decision to rechristen the Palpimanus narsihmehtai after certain sections of the public objected to the name of the poet-saint Narsinh Mehta being associated with a mere arachnid. They might quite justifiably have asked: What is so bad about spiders? Instead, most, including the researchers at Bhakta Kavi Narsinh Mehta University in Junagadh who discovered and named the species, seem to have shrugged off the incident and continued with their good work of peering under leaves and rocks in search of more eight-legged specimens.

It is regrettable that creatures as useful — indeed, critical — as spiders should be embroiled in a needless controversy. Do those who are objecting to the naming of the species not know that spiders are responsible for keeping under control populations of insects, such as fleas, flies and cockroaches, which can cause actual harm to human beings? Or that they are a keystone species whose disappearance would cause the collapse of entire ecosystems? The problem is that when offended feelings are invoked, facts find few takers.

Advertisement

It is common practice around the world for researchers and scientists to name discoveries after someone they idolise or love — that is why we have examples such as Shireplitis tolkieni (a wasp genus), Scaptia beyonceae (a rare horsefly) and Agra katewinsletae (a beetle). Indeed, many who are angry about the Palpimanus narsihmehtai have admitted that those responsible for the naming were probably motivated by their admiration for the seminal Gujarati poet. Alas, in the outrage economy, if facts have few takers, good intentions have even fewer.

This editorial first appeared in the print edition on February 26, 2022 under the title ‘Web of outrage’.