The translator of scientific and technical texts resorts to glossaries and not to onomastics to solve eventual dilemmas. And while it is a fact that there is no scientifically-ruled correspondence between the way we translate and the nature of the terminus technicus, it is also true ?at least as far as we know? that there have been no attempts to first categorize and, eventually, relate them. The present paper results from the end-phase of a research already made public in some of its facets (Calvo, 2014a, 2014b, 2015, 2017a, 2017b, 2018). What we here propose and exemplify is a taxonomy of eponyms and derived eponyms valid for its main sets (geonyms and anthroponyms, plus the subsidiary ctisonyms: product names, including brand names and names of works of art) in which, imitating the taxonomy of biological sciences, we stipulate up to sixteen top to bottom branching specifiers in order to pinpoint, as much as possible, the linguistic, referencial and cultural characteristics ?plus the empirically observable mode of translation? for only one specific term or its peer grouping.