"AI is not just about replicating human intelligence; it’s about creating intelligent systems that can surpass human limitations."
— Yann LeCun
AI is handy for finding information, though I never take its word as final. Recently, while researching the Hairy-necked Tiger Beetle subspecies Cicindela hirticollis rhodensis, I encountered something a bit concerning. It all started when I saw the common name 'Rhode’s Tiger Beetle' on the Wisconsin DNR website:
I've always called it the 'rhodensis subspecies' of Hairy-necked Tiger Beetle, but 'Rhode's' made it seem like it might be named for a person. Googling further, I found the subspecies on Minnesota DNR's website as 'Rhode Island' Tiger Beetle:
Interesting ... so was it for someone named Rhode or for the eastern US state?
While David Pearson's tiger beetle field guide shows the scientific name described by Edwin E. Calder, I thought to run this by Venice.AI. It responded that the subspecies name honored a 'Charles Rhode.' Given how frequently taxonomic names are eponyms, this seemed entirely plausible — especially since the USFWS website also lists the subspecies as 'Rhode's Tiger Beetle'.
I wanted to learn more about Charles Rhode, but grew suspicious of the attribution when my searches yielded no information about him in the context of tiger beetles. Googling more, I finally located Calder's original 1916 journal description from the New York Entomological Society. He indicated that the beetle was first found in 1903 by entomologist C. Abbott Davis on "sandy beaches along the Atlantic Coast from Point Judith to Narragansett Pier, R.I.":
See that?
The mystery was finally solved: the name rhodensis is actually a geographic reference to Rhode Island, rather than an eponym honoring a person. It seems likely that both the Wisconsin DNR and USFWS fell into a similar naming assumption.
But here's the really bad part of this saga ...
When I presented my findings to Venice.AI, it admitted to fabricating the narrative about Charles Rhode:
This interaction serves as a clear case study demonstrating that AI outputs must be fact-checked. I generated a plausible-sounding but entirely false narrative regarding the origin of the name rhodensis. This error was only uncovered because the user independently located the primary source material, which directly contradicted my fabricated information. The AI's tendency to infer and create a coherent story, even when specific data is absent, led to the propagation of misinformation. Without the user's critical verification, the incorrect information would have stood.
Wow.
Being wrong is one thing, but fabricating a narrative?
As far as the common names go, both appear to be in use. While using 'Rhode's' and 'Rhode Island' doesn't alter the scientific nomenclature, I think it's better use the name that accurately reflects the historical and geographic context.
Rhode Island Tiger Beetle it is.
But shame on Venice.AI!
Rhode Island Tiger Beetle © 2026 Mike McDowell