ABSTRACT: This “ETY-torial” (PDF only) examines recent debates about the acceptability and continued use of biological nomina that honor people historically associated with imperialism and colonialism, and/or who advocated sexist, racist or pro-slavery views. Some biologists propose that names deemed offensive or misaligned with contemporary values be retroactively replaced with new ones. Others have proposed the elimination of eponyms altogether, basically arguing that naming an animal after a person demeans the animal. While there is no denying the unfortunate legacies of many nomina, proposals to change existing names based on ethical grounds would disrupt nomenclatural stability, bury taxonomic history, be impractical and costly to implement, and, ultimately, would not benefit science nor conservation. Examples of names (of fishes) are given that demonstrate the disruption and confusion such proposals would bring. An example is also given (again, a fish) that shows how “colonial” and “indigenous” nomina can coexist.