• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Global inequity in scientific names and who they honor (2 Viewers)

D

dnsallen

Well-known member
Global inequity in scientific names and who they honor
Shane DuBay, Daniela H. Palmer, Natalia Piland
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.09.243238

'Linnaean taxonomy is a cornerstone of Western biology in which organisms are given a two-part name (a genus and species), creating biological units that help us order and manage our knowledge of the living world. In this system, the names of species themselves take on additional functions, such as describing features of the organism or honoring individuals (known as eponyms). Here, we interrogate how power and authority over the natural world are claimed through Western scientific naming practices to evaluate the legacies of imperialism, dispossession, and exclusion in these practices. We compile and analyze a dataset of all bird species descriptions from 1950 to present, asking: who has access and power to name species, and who is honored in species names? We show that 95% of newly described species are described from the global South, but the majority of species and eponyms are described by authors, and named after individuals, from the global North. We find an increase through time in authors from the global South, which is associated with a rise in eponyms that honor individuals from global South countries. However, this formal inclusion of global South authors has not translated into increases in first authorship (a primary form of credit and authority in Western science). We contextualize these disparities in naming and authorship within broader global structures of access and power put in place through centuries of European and U.S. imperialism, but a historical perspective alone ignores institutional and individual agency and incentives in present-day actions. As we increasingly reflect on the social foundations and impacts of our science, these findings show how research and labor in the global South continue to be disproportionately translated into power and authority in the global North, upholding and re-enacting imperial structures of domination.'

I think this has been referred to in another thread but I couldn't find a direct discussion...
 
I think this is one of the most important papers on the practice of taxonomy I have read in a long time, and give it a big thumbs up for speaking the truth, pulling its punches in strong language and challenging behaviours.

[As someone who has over time "put" names in each studied category.]

It would also be interesting to see what happens when subspecies are added to the mix. My observations are that more of these recently have honored "local" scientists than is the case for species. Species descriptions in birds tend to be major affairs, ending up with a long list of "institutional expert" authors with little involvement in the actual discovery such as molecular scientists, experts on mapping, experts on statistical analysis or species concepts, and even big-name authors who are invited to participate for what might be called "similar reasons for why eponyms are established" (i.e. "influence"/ "favour"). [It's also of interest that there is an emerging "industry" of institutional molecular scientists based in South America, who author large numbers of species descriptions and have exerted considerable influence over naming, without apparently having any involvement in species discoveries.] Species descriptions are also more often published in a major journal. These factors move towards honoring some big-time older, white male ornithologists in names. The more first world (or other) institutional authors involved, the less control the original discoverers have over the name: dull but inevitable group-think sets in. X, Y or Z is retiring, made a major discovery in the discipline and does not have a name in his honour yet, or gave someone important some money or a job or whatever. [Yes, I've seen all those happen or attempted a few times.] Where subspecies are involved, there are usually fewer authors, mostly based on the people who were "really" involved in the discovery rather than institutional types, fewer external people interfere in the naming process, and there is more liberalism among local scientists (or benevolent or naturalised foreigners!) to honour those involved or other "local" heroes (or, as we have seen a few times, sell the name or use it for fundraising, which can benefit local scientists but also have other criticisms levelled). Having described a few eponyms, I do regret one or two of them, these days, and much prefer morphological or geographical or even "fun" (jokey/memorable) names. Eponyms should be used sparingly if at all, and reserved where possible for (i) people with a personal connection with the discovery or region, (ii) relationships of genuine fondness with those involved (partner, lifelong mentor, etc.). Suck-ups, name sales and big name honorifics are best avoided in my view, leave a bad taste afterwards and disconnect the bird from its history or geography (pers. comm.)
 
Last edited:
Dividing by 'global north' and 'global south' is surely a very poor discriminant? Countries like Benin and Nicaragua are in the global north yet are downtrodden by the imperialists, while Australia and New Zealand, in the global south, are more like the 'north'.


The term 'western' biology is also rather artificial?
 
Nutcracker said:
Dividing by 'global north' and 'global south' is surely a very poor discriminant? Countries like Benin and Nicaragua are in the global north yet are downtrodden by the imperialists, while Australia and New Zealand, in the global south, are more like the 'north'.


The term 'western' biology is also rather artificial?
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_South

"Not to be confused with Southern Hemisphere."

James
 
Just a small comment regarding this sentence in the publication:

Based on the Latin endings of species names, we also assessed gender designations for individuals honored in eponyms (-ae = woman, -i = man, -orum = group of women/men or group of all men, -arum = group of women).
Click to expand...

l_raty said:
I think I must have written this ten times already on various places on the web, but genitives in -ae in Latin characterise a-stem words, which are not strictly feminine at all (all words with a nominative in -a [be them fem. or masc., quite a few are masc. -- Numa, -ae (Pompilius), Roman king], words of Greek origin with a nominative in -as or -es [always masc. -- Aeneas, -ae, Trojan prince; Anchises, -ae, father of the latter]). Genitives in "-ai", on the other hand, although quite frequent in nomenclature, are about as Latin as 万歳 (banzai) is English. Maybe those Italians were just fussy about using correct grammar...? ;)

(The same can't really be said about genitives in -i. A few second-declension nouns are feminine "by meaning" -- for example, all tree names are feminine in Latin because the word "arbor" (a tree, fem.) is always understood: this includes second-declension fagus, -i, quercus, -i, alnus, -i, juniperus, -i, pinus, -i, corylus, -i, prunus, -i, etc. -- but to my knowledge no woman ever had a second-declension personal name. Thus -ae for a man is quite normal and correct if his name ends in -a, -i for a woman is not.)
Click to expand...

No clue if this have any minor impact on this statistics as we don't know the exact names they analysed.
 
thomasdonegan said:
I think this is one of the most important papers on the practice of taxonomy I have read in a long time, and give it a big thumbs up for speaking the truth, pulling its punches in strong language and challenging behaviours.

[As someone who has over time "put" names in each studied category.]

It would also be interesting to see what happens when subspecies are added to the mix. My observations are that more of these recently have honored "local" scientists than is the case for species. Species descriptions in birds tend to be major affairs, ending up with a long list of "institutional expert" authors with little involvement in the actual discovery such as molecular scientists, experts on mapping, experts on statistical analysis or species concepts, and even big-name authors who are invited to participate for what might be called "similar reasons for why eponyms are established" (i.e. "influence"/ "favour"). [It's also of interest that there is an emerging "industry" of institutional molecular scientists based in South America, who author large numbers of species descriptions and have exerted considerable influence over naming, without apparently having any involvement in species discoveries.] Species descriptions are also more often published in a major journal. These factors move towards honoring some big-time older, white male ornithologists in names. The more first world (or other) institutional authors involved, the less control the original discoverers have over the name: dull but inevitable group-think sets in. X, Y or Z is retiring, made a major discovery in the discipline and does not have a name in his honour yet, or gave someone important some money or a job or whatever. [Yes, I've seen all those happen or attempted a few times.] Where subspecies are involved, there are usually fewer authors, mostly based on the people who were "really" involved in the discovery rather than institutional types, fewer external people interfere in the naming process, and there is more liberalism among local scientists (or benevolent or naturalised foreigners!) to honour those involved or other "local" heroes (or, as we have seen a few times, sell the name or use it for fundraising, which can benefit local scientists but also have other criticisms levelled). Having described a few eponyms, I do regret one or two of them, these days, and much prefer morphological or geographical or even "fun" (jokey/memorable) names. Eponyms should be used sparingly if at all, and reserved where possible for (i) people with a personal connection with the discovery or region, (ii) relationships of genuine fondness with those involved (partner, lifelong mentor, etc.). Suck-ups, name sales and big name honorifics are best avoided in my view, leave a bad taste afterwards and disconnect the bird from its history or geography (pers. comm.)
Click to expand...

I agree, the paper broaches some important topics.
Ones that are related to culture, dominance, and language too, which by design or default seeks to impose a new cultural and ownership paradigm.

Many Indigenous names for species (and place) can be quite the tongue twisters, but perhaps no more difficult for the average person to comprehend than Latin. I just happen to be spectacularly hopeless at all languages apart from English (mostly ! :) , though I am trying .....

Probably the most widely known related example here would be the returning of the name 'Uluru' to the giant monolith in central Australia, as opposed to the imposed name of Ayer's Rock. Hundreds of Thousands of years of culture should count for something after all ......

Perhaps the step change in critical thinking can be demonstrated when people ask - 'what did the Indigenous First Nations peoples call Australia before the British invaded ?' ....... the answer, usually to great surprise, comes back as - 'Ours.'

I have seen the notion of even discussing these important topics, p** p**ed elsewhere as PC Madness gone mad ! , snowflakery, etc. Often those triggered the most at cultural rebalancing and respect, belong to the same cultures who cancelled ownership of Indigenous lands in the first place along with 'cancelling' a great many Indigenous people .....

Far from being Identity Politics, or a Cancel Culture movement, or whatever label is ascribed, etc, I see such discussions and change as a, mature, inclusive, complex, and welcome evolution of the species as a whole. It may hopefully, result in more reverence, care, and respect, for the natural world. :t:







Chosun :gh:
 
I support Thomas in labelling this an important paper and agree with his general comments on eponyms. It is certainly an interesting statistical exercise and, happily, the authors decline to rewrite history or offer any over-arching solution to the inequalities they highlight. I am sure, though, that it will help to focus minds, consign imperialism to the history books, rather than try to impose our values thereon, and encourage all scientists to ponder the direction of nomenclature in the future. Some observers have prophesied that within a century the world will be speaking Chinese, and that their hegemony will make the actions of the old western empires pale by comparison.
Sorry about wandering off subject, still in lockdown!
 
There is a well-known lesson from history: those who forget it are punished by repeating it.

Names do not honor people or things, they are associated with people or things. Consider Great Slave Lake, Alzheimer's disease, Tyrannosaurus rex, monk parakeet, death's-head hawkmoth or jackass penguin.
 
We had similar discussions like this e.g.

PScofield said:
Wilmot Wood Brown Jr (Birdkiller Brown as he was known on the Cayman Islands) was born on 19 May 1868 in Charlestown, Mass. The son of Wilmot Wood Brown Snr and Anne L. Brown. He died at 11 am on 10 Jul 1953 at the Hotel Mexico, Chilpancingo, Guerrero, Mexico.

He seems to have had issues remembering his birth year, as on various official forms it was given as 1868, 1869, 1870 and 1871. Given that such "amnesia" is often due to vanity I have chosen to use the earliest date and that suggested by the 1880 census. He lived at various times in Somerville, Mass and El Paso, TX. His birthdate is certainly not in the late 1870s.

By the way having read a bit about Mr Brown, he is honestly one of the most contemptible of all the people that have been honored in ornithology. The fact he is recognized in several names is stomach churning. If there was a process for removing his honorifics through the IUZN I would seriously think about doing so...
Click to expand...
 
I've kept schtum on this to date, but probably the recent "loads of new species of Grallaria" is an interesting modern case study.

The paper includes a "nice mix" of South American scientists and US museum scientists. It's a great paper, massively, many years overdue, but perhaps like homesickness, once you are home, you forget about the sickness that preceeded it!

The new names honour the following:

Gary Graves, a US museum curator who will probably be remembered as a risk-taker. That can be a good thing when you get it right, e.g. describing Parker's Antbird Cercomacra parkeri based only on a single plumage character in females, which could only be found using a colorimeter on a sample of dead birds, with no vocal or molecular data. Later vocal and molecular studies have supported this remarkable description! More embarrassing things that can happen when you take risks ... such as the non-existent Bogota Suanangel Heliangelus zusii, published by Graves with some fanfare in Auk, then "proved correct" in a molecular paper co-authored by Graves but now recognised as a hybrid of birds not even in that genus.

John O'Neill, a major fund-raiser for museum collecting expeditions in Peru and coauthor of Birds of Peru. A major figure in birds with many accomplishments, and a major cheerleader for en masse museum collecting in S America by US museums, which some disagree with.

Mauricio Alvarez, probably the person who has made more sound recordings of Colombian birds than any other person, and a superb field ornithologist. But also a top and humble guy who has not been that productive in the periodical literature. I was really pleased to see him honored!

Let's look at the English names:
gravesi - Graves' Antpitta.
oneilli - ONeill's Antpitta.
alvarez - "Chami" Antpitta. Eh?

At the same time, we have the totally useless "Sierra Nevada" Antpitta for the Santa Marta form. Sierra Nevada is generally taken to refer to a mountain range in Spain or California, not Colombia (Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta translating into "Santa Marta" in most bird names).

This all begs the question why Alvarez's Antpitta was not named as such. And if an indigenous English name were to be adopted, which is fun and educational, then why not e.g. "Kogi Antpitta" for the one in Santa Marta?

Anyway. The two N Americans are not without controversy. I won't call them undeserving of an eponym at all, but will note that even with lots of local scientists involved, the Latino inexplicably misses out sometimes.... albeit here only on the English name and not contributing to the stats in the paper discussed above. Equity in English naming could have been improved, either by using geographical or morphological names for all of them, or honoring all those honored properly.

Best wishes, Thomas
 
Last edited:
thomasdonegan said:
This all begs the question why Alvarez's Antpitta was not named as such. And if an indigenous English name were to be adopted, which is fun and educational, then why not e.g. "Kogi Antpitta" for the one in Santa Marta?

Anyway. The two N Americans are not without controversy. I won't call them undeserving of an eponym at all, but will note that even with lots of local scientists involved, the Latino inexplicably misses out sometimes.... albeit here only on the English name and not contributing to the stats in the paper discussed above. Equity in English naming could have been improved, either by using geographical or morphological names for all of them, or honoring all those honored properly.

Best wishes, Thomas
Click to expand...

The first two authors of the description of Grallaria alvarezi are Colombian, so I'm guessing they were the ones who chose the Latin and English names. They decided to honor a Colombian ornithologist in the Latin name, and an indigenous group in the English name. Seems like a nice balance to me. I'm not sure why they should be second guessed, especially by a non-Colombian.

All of the authors of the description of G. gravesi and G. oneilli are Americans. The two ornithologists they honor in the Latin and English names are Gary Graves who initiated the whole study of the Rufous Antpitta complex, and apart from being a museum curator, was at the forefront of South American field exploration in the 70s and 80s, and discovered/described, among many others, Long-whiskered Owlet and Ochre-fronted Antpitta. He also described Antioquia Bristle-Tyrant from museum specimens that had long lain unrecognized. I have no idea why you would say he is "not without controversy", getting the Bogotà Sunangel wrong in the days before DNA testing of old museum specimens was widely available is not a stain on his career, IMO. John O'Neill I don't think needs any introduction. In both of these cases, it would have been difficult to pick a geographic name (roughly speaking, they are elevational replacements of Chestnut and Oxapampa Antpittas), one that honored a local ethnic group (all of their ranges are pretty much part of the former Inca empire), or one that was descriptive (they are all pretty much uniform chestnut/rufous).

It really seems like you're trying hard to find fault where there's not much fault to be found. And in any event, are these really 'worse' than, say, Vireo masteri, which was auctioned off, or Megascops gilesi, which is nearly the same situation?
 
cajanuma said:
It really seems like you're trying hard to find fault where there's not much fault to be found. And in any event, are these really 'worse' than, say, Vireo masteri, which was auctioned off, or Megascops gilesi, which is nearly the same situation?
Click to expand...

Those comments might seem fair enough; some of the authors are not my friends. But the context is a paper effectively that "local" scientist involvement should be the safekeeper of more local eponyms. Of course, there are local scientists who honour "global north" scientists in eponyms and there are "global North" scientists who have honoured "global South" persons in eponyms. All I was really trying to say is that all need to do better, and that the issue extends from binomials to English names.

I will note there seems quite tacit acceptance for the principle generally and underlying philosophy in yours, that "lots of people in the museum/academia space should have eponyms" - whilst if they are conservationists or conservation donors then that's really bad. I don't know all the masteri story as it was "before my time" so to speak, but I recall reading the price was quite high and the funds were used to create the Rio Nambi reserve, which at the time was the only known locality for the Vireo.

V masteri was auctioned off to the highest bidder, but you are confusing M gilesi which is honorific. As for Robert Giles, who I should disclose is a personal friend and 'compadre' of mine - his name on this one (and some other taxa) refers someone who lives a very humble life, but whose generosity resulted in probably 15 nature reserves in Colombia being secured and several research initiatives. He is from the "global North" too, but why is a global North museum collector or academic better or more worthy of recognition than a global North conservationist, especially here who made such a huge contribution to conservation in the particular country and indeed creation of the reserve which is the type locality?

There is of course a broader point here, which I have endorsed and repeat, that geographical and morphological names are the best in general.
 
Last edited:
cajanuma said:
The first two authors of the description of Grallaria alvarezi are Colombian, so I'm guessing they were the ones who chose the Latin and English names. They decided to honor a Colombian ornithologist in the Latin name, and an indigenous group in the English name. Seems like a nice balance to me. I'm not sure why they should be second guessed, especially by a non-Colombian.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I do also think that the authors' wishes when they describe a species should generally stand (and that checklist committees tend to interfere with those choices rather too often). So let it be. That does not however mean for suppression of commentary. There are other indigenous names in this set, and one would better have been used for the Santa Marta form IMHO - it's a criticism rather than a proposal.
 
thomasdonegan said:
I will note there seems quite tacit acceptance for the principle generally and underlying philosophy in yours, that "lots of people in the museum/academia space should have eponyms" - whilst if they are conservationists or conservation donors then that's really bad. I don't know all the masteri story as it was "before my time" so to speak, but I recall reading the price was quite high and the funds were used to create the Rio Nambi reserve, which at the time was the only known locality for the Vireo.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure why you're assuming that I would think that conservationists/conservation donors having birds named after them is 'really bad'? My take is exactly the opposite, anyone who has earned their stripes, whether it's science/museum/academia/conservation/promotion of birds or birding/local community involvment is certainly worthy of recognition. And I really think you're setting up a false dichotomy in presenting this as an academia vs conservation situation, when in fact I would say that museum science and taxonomy is just another facet of conservation, and most museum scientists are ardent conservationists as well. The reason I brought up V. masteri is because you specifically wrote in your first post on this thread that you thought name sales should be avoided.

I'm not sure I should be mentioning it here, as it is only hearsay, but my understanding of the Vireo masteri story - and specifically the use of the funds - as I heard it from the people who currently run the Rio Nambi reserve is drastically different. Again, only hearsay.

I don't mean to antagonize anyone here, but there's often a strong undercurrent of hostility to 'museum' ornithology here on BirdForum and I think it's good to bring another perspective (I am a birder and not a scientist, but I gratefully acknowledge the role of museum scientists in my hobby and in conservation)
 
Thumbs up in general to yours.

cajanuma said:
The reason I brought up V. masteri is because you specifically wrote in your first post on this thread that you thought name sales should be avoided. I'm not sure I should be mentioning it here, as it is only hearsay, but my understanding of the Vireo masteri story - and specifically the use of the funds - as I heard it from the people who currently run the Rio Nambi reserve is drastically different. Again, only hearsay.
Click to expand...

I don't know the story very well either, except there was an auction and the funds were to be used for conservation purposes (I had assumed locally).

Museums are really useful and good things. I used to use them a lot when I did this stuff properly (rather than now, when I just occasionally spout off on this discussion forum!).
 
thomasdonegan said:
Anyway. The two N Americans are not without controversy. I won't call them undeserving of an eponym at all, but will note that even with lots of local scientists involved, the Latino inexplicably misses out sometimes.... albeit here only on the English name and not contributing to the stats in the paper discussed above. Equity in English naming could have been improved, either by using geographical or morphological names for all of them,

Best wishes, Thomas
Click to expand...

Obviously the way to go.
 
cajanuma said:
I'm not really sure why you're assuming that I would think that conservationists/conservation donors having birds named after them is 'really bad'? My take is exactly the opposite, anyone who has earned their stripes, whether it's science/museum/academia/conservation/promotion of birds or birding/local community involvment is certainly worthy of recognition. And I really think you're setting up a false dichotomy in presenting this as an academia vs conservation situation, when in fact I would say that museum science and taxonomy is just another facet of conservation, and most museum scientists are ardent conservationists as well. The reason I brought up V. masteri is because you specifically wrote in your first post on this thread that you thought name sales should be avoided.

I'm not sure I should be mentioning it here, as it is only hearsay, but my understanding of the Vireo masteri story - and specifically the use of the funds - as I heard it from the people who currently run the Rio Nambi reserve is drastically different. Again, only hearsay.

I don't mean to antagonize anyone here, but there's often a strong undercurrent of hostility to 'museum' ornithology here on BirdForum and I think it's good to bring another perspective (I am a birder and not a scientist, but I gratefully acknowledge the role of museum scientists in my hobby and in conservation)
Click to expand...

Only in regard to what many perceive to be the unneccessary and outdated 'collecting' of specimens.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Taphrospilus
Minor on Falco rupicoloides fieldi (Elliot, 1897)
Replies
2
Views
373
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus
Cyornis lemprieri (Sharpe, 1884) , Platylophus galericulatus lemprieri Nicholson, F 1883 and Anthracoceros lemprieri Sharpe, 1885
Replies
5
Views
462
l_raty
l_raty
Taphrospilus
Lorius gulielmi Ramsay, 1878
Replies
1
Views
427
PScofield
P
Taphrospilus
Gallirallus australis hectori (Hutton, 1874) and others
Replies
0
Views
293
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus
Melipotes carolae Beehler, Prawiradilaga, de Fretes & Kemp, 2007
Replies
3
Views
669
Björn Bergenholtz
Björn Bergenholtz

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top