human genome was delivered into the public domain by Tony "Biotech" Blair and Bill "Compute-guy" Clinton in 2000 we binfoes were all justifiably stoked and/or proud to have contributed in a small-small way or to have known people who had helped make sense of the 3 billion base-pairs that is our genome. It is not wholly clear whose genome was chosen to represent us all. The Human Genome Project took DNA from five individuals of different ethnicities and created a composite human genome. They were spooked into getting the material into publishable form by J Craig Venter's threat to sequence the whole thing licketty-spit as a commercial venture while the HGP was still plodding towards Bethlehem. It is a racing certainty that JCV is the main contributor of DNA as well as oomph and leadership to this commercially funded Celera genome. Celera ("The Swift") being the name of JCV's company. It is rather more certain that the dog (Canis familiaris) genome was clagged together from DNA contributed (without informed consent) by Venter's poodle "Shadow" (seen here). Of course we realise with 20/20 hindsight that the completion of The human genome was not the end but rather the beginning a huge series of projects to document the extent genetic variation among us.
The idea that there should be a single genome to represent a species and against which the rest of us are compared goes back a long way: ante-dating the discovery of the structure of DNA let alone our ability to unravel its weave. The idea of a type specimen is at least 250 years old. Before we had computers to store DNA information or -80C freezers to store the actual DNA, there was a physical specimen in a museum - for small mammals often a preserved skin and skull with a hand-written luggage label tied securely to a hind-leg. If you turn over a rock in a tropical paradise and catch whatever scuttles away from you, it is not unlikely that you have in your hand a species unknown to science. You verify this by comparing your skull-and-skin to a lot of type specimens in a lot of museums, which is time-consuming but involves travel and schmoozing with fellow enthusiasts in Cambridge MA, and Cambridge UK, Utica NY and Uppsala SE. If it's different, you get to name it which allows you to exercise hubris, flattery, or a sense of humour. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), the name has to be a Linnaean 'binomer' using Latin or Greek roots or making a proper name look Latin or Greek. Megascops koepckeae (the big owl of Maria Köpcke) which I mentioned a few days ago is a good example. Because these names are foreign it is conventional to italicise them. The first name represents the Genus - a group of related species - and is always Capitalised. The second part identifies the species and is always lower case even if, as here, it is derived from a proper name. Getting to know these conventions is part of what we teach at The Institute. You know you have arrived as a scientist when you tsk tsk or snicker at some poor mutt of a journo who writes Caerostris Darwini rather than Caerostris darwini. The poor journo, having an Arts Block education, at least knows where to put his apostrophes, which is more than we can say of most scientists.
same name doesn't include two species. It gets complicated because the data is biological - noisy, inconsistent, ever-changing and biodegradable.