The Guardian reveals top 10 shortlist and opens public vote for Invertebrate of the Year 2026

The Guardian is running a public vote to crown one of Earth's 1.3 million known invertebrate species as Invertebrate of the Year 2026.

Among the 1.3 million known invertebrate species on Earth, The Guardian is asking readers to vote for a favourite to be named Invertebrate of the Year 2026. After a nomination phase in which readers submitted their preferred spineless creatures, a top 10 shortlist has been revealed following a two-week profiling period, and voting is now officially open. One featured candidate is Bombus dahlbomii, a giant ginger bumblebee native to Patagonia known as the moscardón or 'flying mouse' and dubbed the 'panda of the insect world,' which is in decline due to commercial farming. The contest spans a vast range of animals — from cephalopods such as octopuses and squid to insects and other bugs. The initiative is part of The Guardian's broader environmental and conservation coverage.

Why it matters

Public engagement campaigns like this can raise awareness of invertebrate biodiversity at a time when many species face habitat loss and population decline. Invertebrates make up the vast majority of known animal species yet receive far less conservation attention than vertebrates.

What's next

Votes are being collected to determine the winner, which The Guardian will announce as the Invertebrate of the Year 2026.

Key facts

• There are approximately 1.3 million known invertebrate species worldwide
• The contest is titled 'Invertebrate of the Year 2026' and is run by The Guardian
• A public nomination phase preceded the current final vote
• The shortlist includes cephalopods (e.g. octopuses, squid) and various insect species
• The campaign is paired with coverage of a 'climate hero' involved in bat conservation

Bias & framing notes

Both sources are from The Guardian and represent the same publication promoting its own reader engagement campaign; no independent external sources corroborate or add context. Source 1 uses playful, enthusiastic language ('crush-worthy,' 'beautiful bugs') typical of feature promotion, while Source 2 is more straightforward. Neither source is contested or factually contradictory — they simply differ in tone.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week