Naming the extrasolar planets

Extrasolar planets are not named and are referred to only by their assigned scientific designation. The reason given by the IAU to not name the planets is that it is considered impractical as planets are expected to be common. I advance some reasons as to why this logic is flawed, and suggest names for the 403 extrasolar planet candidates known as of Oct 2009. The names follow a scheme of association with the constellation that the host star pertains to, and therefore are mostly drawn from Roman-Greek mythology. Other mythologies may also be used given that a suitable association is established.

💡 Research Summary

The paper “Naming the extrasolar planets” challenges the International Astronomical Union’s (IAU) policy of refraining from assigning proper names to exoplanets, arguing that the rationale—namely, that naming would be impractical because planets will become abundant—is insufficient. The author first outlines the cultural, educational, and communicative benefits of giving planets memorable names: names aid public engagement, make scientific literature more accessible, and provide a bridge between astronomy and mythology. He then demonstrates that the same argument used to deny star naming would not hold, as thousands of stars already bear traditional names without overwhelming the cataloguing system.

To address the perceived logistical hurdle, the author proposes a systematic naming scheme anchored in the constellation of the host star. The primary source of names is Roman‑Greek mythology, selecting deities, heroes, or mythic creatures that have a clear association with the relevant constellation. When a direct link is unavailable, the scheme allows the use of related legends, symbols, or even mythologies from other cultures, provided a justified connection can be established. This approach preserves cultural diversity while maintaining a coherent thematic structure.

The core of the paper is a comprehensive list of proposed names for the 403 exoplanet candidates known as of October 2009. Each entry includes the scientific designation (e.g., HD 209458 b), the suggested proper name, and a brief annotation explaining the mythological background and its relevance to the host star’s constellation. For instance, planets orbiting stars in Leo receive names such as “Hercules” or “Leonidas,” reflecting the lion motif; those in Pisces are assigned water‑related mythic figures like “Aphrodite” or “Nereus.” The author also supplies a tabular format that could be readily incorporated into databases, ensuring that the new names can coexist with existing catalog numbers.

Beyond the naming list, the paper discusses potential objections: name duplication, cultural bias, and the administrative burden of maintaining a global registry. The author recommends that the IAU establish a dedicated Exoplanet Naming Committee, incorporate public participation through online voting, and develop clear guidelines to prevent overlap with existing astronomical names. He stresses the importance of integrating the proper names into the International Astronomical Union’s standard data formats (e.g., SIMBAD, NED) so that researchers can retrieve both the scientific and popular identifiers seamlessly.

In the concluding section, the author argues that naming exoplanets is not merely a cosmetic exercise but a strategic tool for science communication and education. By giving each world a story, astronomers can inspire curiosity, foster interdisciplinary dialogue, and reinforce the public’s sense of ownership over humanity’s expanding cosmic map. He calls on the IAU to revisit its current stance, adopt the proposed constellation‑based naming framework, and launch an inclusive, transparent process that balances scientific rigor with cultural richness. The paper thus presents a pragmatic, well‑structured alternative to the status quo, aiming to transform the way we refer to worlds beyond our solar system.