(I think I could equally have posted this in the biology section!). I know nothing about formal structure of biology..and hope that I will be enlightened. My question is to do with naming systems in physics vs naming systems in biology.. In physics nearly all units that you care to mention are eponymouse eg. newton, watt, joule, gauss,... etc.. Is there an equivelant in biology? further, in physics (and maths and chemistry) pretty much all theories and inventions are eponymous, eg. feynman integral, einstein coefficients, Newton's laws, Greene's theorem.... I could name a hundred million more! again, Is there something similar to that in biology? Finally, there is a kind of playfulness or lack of formality in some names thought up physicists and astronomers. an obvious example for playfulness is the acronyms MACHOs and WIMPS. Regarding lack of formality, look at the names of subatomic particle "strange" "charm" "up" "down" etc... In astronomy (as Neill De Grasse Tyson often points out), there is very strong tendency to name things very informally (ie. they are named after what they look like). eg. the "red spot" on jupiter. any nebula you can think of - "cat's eye" "dumbbell" etc... Does this lack of formallity and sometimes humerous naming exist in biology? - as an outsider (and again this is pointed out by Tyson) much of biology naming systems seem to have very technical latin roots and so on... All comments appreciated!