Renaming taxa on ethical grounds (1 Viewer)

[Mohamed Amezian]

Ceríaco, L.M.P., Aescht, E., Ahyong, S.T., Ballerio, A., Bouchard, P., Bourgoin, T., Dmitriev, D., Evenhuis, N., Grygier, M.J., Harvey, M.S., Kottelat, M., Kluge, N., Krell, F.-T., Kojima, J.-I., Kullander, S.O., Lucinda, P., Lyal, C.H.C., Pyle, R.L., Rheindt, F.E., Luisa Scioscia, C., Welter-Schultes, F., Whitmore, D., Yanega, D., Zhang, Z.-Q., Zhou, H.-Z., Pape, T., 2023. Renaming taxa on ethical grounds threatens nomenclatural stability and scientific communication: Communication from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society zlac107. DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlac107

 

[Andy Adcock]

A well reasoned and sensible piece.

 

[Mysticete]

Of note this specifically applies to SCIENTIFIC NAMES, which are a whole other kettle of fish than common names.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Wok

Ceríaco, L.M.P., Aescht, E., Ahyong, S.T., Ballerio, A., Bouchard, P., Bourgoin, T., Dmitriev, D., Evenhuis, N., Grygier, M.J., Harvey, M.S., Kottelat, M., Kluge, N., Krell, F.-T., Kojima, J.-I., Kullander, S.O., Lucinda, P., Lyal, C.H.C., Pyle, R.L., Rheindt, F.E., Luisa Scioscia, C., Welter-Schultes, F., Whitmore, D., Yanega, D., Zhang, Z.-Q., Zhou, H.-Z., Pape, T., 2023. Renaming taxa on ethical grounds threatens nomenclatural stability and scientific communication: Communication from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society zlac107. DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlac107

Wokism in zoology ? 🧐

 

[l_raty]

Of note this specifically applies to SCIENTIFIC NAMES, which are a whole other kettle of fish than common names.

They are, but only to the extent that it remains clear that "common names" can in no event be claimed to assume the function of scientific names and "act as the primary labels for taxa".

 

[Andy Adcock]

Of note this specifically applies to SCIENTIFIC NAMES, which are a whole other kettle of fish than common names.

An eponymic name will often have that eponym attached to both common and scientific forms and there have clearly been moves made by certain groups against scientific names as the prompt for this article?

 

[Paul Clapham]

An eponymic name will often have that eponym attached to both common and scientific forms and there have clearly been moves made by certain groups against scientific names as the prompt for this article?

The ICZN has pretty clearly said there that they have a procedures manual which states when and how scientific names of mammals can be changed, and that they don't plan to modify it to allow other reasons. And there's a procedure for creating new names; at present there is no real limit on what a researcher can use for a name. They don't plan to modify that procedure either.

In other words, it's still possible for a new species to be given a name which some group may disapprove of, and the ICZN says they are not going to be sucked into being the arbiter of any such disagreements.

 

[Mysticete]

My feeling is that eponyms have been less a target than common names, because they are part of a highly formulated system. Common names never have been, and people even ignoring the recent eponym controversiy usually had no trouble changing them or ignoring existing ones. A lot of your favorite established common names were just invented or changed off the fly for little reason to begin with. The difference being that they were changed before you were a birder, so you didn't know better.

 

[jurek]

In academia where I live, this movement is currently quiet and associated with the epithet "distraction". In the time of 2022-2023 economic crisis, some students and journalists seem not proud, that for years earlier, instead of advocating practical action to stop growth of objective poverty and economic insecurity of vulnerable groups of the society, they diverted attention to words and names, literally lip service.

So, renaming of Alpine peaks and such is not likely for now.

 

[thomasdonegan]

My feeling is that eponyms have been less a target than common names, because they are part of a highly formulated system. Common names never have been, and people even ignoring the recent eponym controversiy usually had no trouble changing them or ignoring existing ones. A lot of your favorite established common names were just invented or changed off the fly for little reason to begin with. The difference being that they were changed before you were a birder, so you didn't know better.

Hmmmm. Not always - binomial nomenclature was invented in 1758. Many English names nowadays take their root in the works of Willughby (1676, 1678) who first wrote them down, almost a century before Linnaeus thought to use Latin names. Nowadays, as a person with an interest in S America, I sometimes see English names seen as some sort of politically incorrect "global North", unwanted exterior force; and back in the 1600s noone had yet identified Northern White-crowned Tapaculo. However, locally (here in Britain) English names have been around, kind of "forever" and since the dawn of time, because people have always observed and named the birds that they live with. Many birds are discussed in the works of Shakespeare. So have vernaculars in other languages all around the world. Aristotle's history of animals, published c. 350 years before Christ in Greek, used vernaculars. Binomial nomenclature was aimed at providing a consistent and unchanging system for global usage, which differs from the purposes and use of a living language. Anyway.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Hmmmm. Not always - binomial nomenclature was invented in 1758. Many English names nowadays take their root in the works of Willughby (1676, 1678) who first wrote them down, almost a century before Linnaeus thought to use Latin names. Nowadays, as a person with an interest in S America, I sometimes see English names seen as some sort of politically incorrect "global North", unwanted exterior force; and back in the 1600s noone had yet identified Northern White-crowned Tapaculo. However, locally (here in Britain) English names have been around, kind of "forever" and since the dawn of time, because people have always observed and named the birds that they live with. Many birds are discussed in the works of Shakespeare. So have vernaculars in other languages all around the world. Aristotle's history of animals, published c. 350 years before Christ in Greek, used vernaculars. Binomial nomenclature was aimed at providing a consistent and unchanging system for global usage, which differs from the purposes and use of a living language. Anyway.

Can you explain this bit, especially the 'politically incorrect' and, are you advocating the use of multiple languages for bird names for English speaking birders or, using a direct translation of native names where appropriate?

 

[thomasdonegan]

Can you explain this bit, especially the 'politically incorrect' and, are you advocating the use of multiple languages for bird names for English speaking birders or, using a direct translation of native names where appropriate?

I don't know, I just sometimes feel like obsessing over English language names of birds that occur in non-English speaking countries (which is something I have spent a small part of my life doing) is a bit of an odd activity. It creates a lexicon that non-first-English speaking local guides are expected to learn, so that they can sell services to high-paying "global North" visitors. It also means that local birds have a name-set which is somewhat disconnected from their local communities, in English and in Latin, but not other tongues. On the other hand, one tends to find locally in many "global South" countries that ornithology as a pursuit is largely restricted to academically trained persons who are quite happy with Linnaean names; a lack of non-academically trained local enthusiasts results in a lack of an audience for local name standardisation. So we create a system of Latin and English names that does not enfranchise local people and communities. There is an effort to create standardised French names for birds, but that barely helps in the "bird continent" of South America, for example. Some of the more impassioned debates in this forum and more broadly (especially re eponyms) have ultimately been about names that may be disconnected from the communities that live locally to birds. I suppose keeping a standardised English language name list is ultimately worthwhile since English is widely spoken and these names are often more stable than Linnaean ones, since they are not so prone to change with generic revisions and taxonomic or nomenclatural studies. But I think we could do more to help local people to communicate with developing other language systems. On birdforum, my own view is that there is way too much discussion of vernacular names; it often seems to be the main discussion point when a split or lump is promoted rather than a secondary issue.

Back to the original topic? This is about scientific names! Should they be changed when offensive? Yes? No? Sometimes? The Commission seems to have said No. I am more of a "sometimes" person. Given how often names change for other reasons and how few truly offensive names there might be (as opposed to non-PC ones), having an ICZN power to invalidate certain particularly offensive names would seem sensible.

 

[Mysticete]

On birdforum, my own view is that there is way too much discussion of vernacular names; it often seems to be the main discussion point when a split or lump is promoted rather than a secondary issue.

I am guilty of this as much as the next person. In part I think you see this because it doesn't require the degree of expertise necessary to evaluate the merit of a common name (which is largely aesthetic) versus the actual science underlying the split/lump/other taxonomic change. And I think people invest emotional attachment to names that they don't with scientific names.

On to the original topic, my opinion is we shouldn't change names, as I think it potentially leads to a slippery slope and creates more problems than merit.

 

[njlarsen]

So we create a system of Latin and English names that does not enfranchise local people and communities.

I think this is about as good a quote as I could find for what I would like to add to Thomas's discussion:
I would be happy for there to be a charity helping with bringing local language versions of field guides to countries where these do not exist. Exactly because some of those interested would possibly become guides, I would prefer to have a version where the names are listed in both local and English. I would even pay my small contribution to such a charity!
Niels

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

I think this is about as good a quote as I could find for what I would like to add to Thomas's discussion:
I would be happy for there to be a charity helping with bringing local language versions of field guides to countries where these do not exist. Exactly because some of those interested would possibly become guides, I would prefer to have a version where the names are listed in both local and English. I would even pay my small contribution to such a charity!
Niels

Maybe more of this sort of thing?

Multi-Ethnic Bird Guide of the Sub-Antarctic Forests of South America - UNT Press - UNT

Website of the UNT Press in Denton, TX.

untpress.unt.edu

 

[Xenospiza]

Given how often names change for other reasons and how few truly offensive names there might be (as opposed to non-PC ones), having an ICZN power to invalidate certain particularly offensive names would seem sensible.

Well I am seriously offended by the name change from Delichon urbica to Delichon urbicum, which the ICZN seems to have no issues with.

Delichon is an anagram of the Greek Chelidon (χελιδων) which is feminine, but David and Gosselin, apparently not hampered by a knowledge of Greek, stated:
Quoted from the AERC: "Delichon is an anagram of Chelidon, its gender was not indicated by its original author but it ends in -on and as a consequence must be treated as neuter (David & Gosselin 2002a)."
If I read it all correctly Delichon nipalensis is the type species, so the gender can be two things, but most definitely not neutre.

If that is possible, I don't see why changing a seriously rude name is suddenly a no-no.

 

[vergan]

I don't know, I just sometimes feel like obsessing over English language names of birds that occur in non-English speaking countries (which is something I have spent a small part of my life doing) is a bit of an odd activity. It creates a lexicon that non-first-English speaking local guides are expected to learn, so that they can sell services to high-paying "global North" visitors. It also means that local birds have a name-set which is somewhat disconnected from their local communities, in English and in Latin, but not other tongues. On the other hand, one tends to find locally in many "global South" countries that ornithology as a pursuit is largely restricted to academically trained persons who are quite happy with Linnaean names; a lack of non-academically trained local enthusiasts results in a lack of an audience for local name standardisation. So we create a system of Latin and English names that does not enfranchise local people and communities. There is an effort to create standardised French names for birds, but that barely helps in the "bird continent" of South America, for example. Some of the more impassioned debates in this forum and more broadly (especially re eponyms) have ultimately been about names that may be disconnected from the communities that live locally to birds. I suppose keeping a standardised English language name list is ultimately worthwhile since English is widely spoken and these names are often more stable than Linnaean ones, since they are not so prone to change with generic revisions and taxonomic or nomenclatural studies. But I think we could do more to help local people to communicate with developing other language systems. On birdforum, my own view is that there is way too much discussion of vernacular names; it often seems to be the main discussion point when a split or lump is promoted rather than a secondary issue.

Back to the original topic? This is about scientific names! Should they be changed when offensive? Yes? No? Sometimes? The Commission seems to have said No. I am more of a "sometimes" person. Given how often names change for other reasons and how few truly offensive names there might be (as opposed to non-PC ones), having an ICZN power to invalidate certain particularly offensive names would seem sensible.

That may be the case, but please remember that there is also a list names in Spanish, so it is not just a problem of English language.
While it may be of great interest initially (i.e. officially incorporating vernacular names from Spanish speaking America into thespanish ornithological world), then became a matter of creating weird names for species/groups that have never been known in Spanish language. Even worse, they just decided to change Spanish names that have been around for decades if not centuries, with no issue or whatsoever, just because the guys in charge of it personally preferred other names over the ones already in use and well established.

 

[njlarsen]

Maybe more of this sort of thing?

Multi-Ethnic Bird Guide of the Sub-Antarctic Forests of South America - UNT Press - UNT

Website of the UNT Press in Denton, TX.

untpress.unt.edu

I am unsure because I do not know how much of this is multilingual, only the name or also the general text? As an example, for a clearly Spanish speaking area, text in Spanish with both that and English for common names would work. Having everything in multiple languages might be excessive (the English version of the text could be limited to the English language book that the Spanish version was translated from).

Niels

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

I am unsure because I do not know how much of this is multilingual, only the name or also the general text? As an example, for a clearly Spanish speaking area, text in Spanish with both that and English for common names would work. Having everything in multiple languages might be excessive (the English version of the text could be limited to the English language book that the Spanish version was translated from).

Niels

I'm not sure either but I think the inclusion of stories from indigenous people is an interesting (and potentially significant) addition in terms of giving the birds some wider context. I think with the additional languages, it may also be about giving value to those languages, the people who speak them and their way of understanding and naming birds.

 

[michalb]

I don't know, I just sometimes feel like obsessing over English language names of birds that occur in non-English speaking countries (which is something I have spent a small part of my life doing) is a bit of an odd activity. It creates a lexicon that non-first-English speaking local guides are expected to learn, so that they can sell services to high-paying "global North" visitors. It also means that local birds have a name-set which is somewhat disconnected from their local communities, in English and in Latin, but not other tongues.

One of the best posts in recent memory!