" Hitler is a clear example"
My nosiness has driven me to find out if “Hitler” is still a family name and found out that there are presently more Hitlers living than people with my family name ;-)
7 Likes
The swastika (and the similar sauwastika) are very much still used today in India and by followers of Hinduism, Buddhism, & Jainism. I agree that the symbol could be very triggering to those who have experience trauma (both directly or indirectly) at the hands of people who misused and abused the meaning behind that symbol. But it is very much still a part of the cultural and religious symbolism for many people and it would be unjust to ask them to discontinue their use of it.
I can see some logic to this, but I think intent behind a word matters more than how the receiver perceives the word. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I have experience times where “queer” has been used as an insult and times where it was used as a term of pride. The same word, but the intent was very different. I realize that it would be impossible to decern the intent behind every potentially offensive scientific name. But saying “just don’t let it bother you” is a simplification of something much more nuance.
9 Likes
I don’t think that when I started this topic that it’d promote so many diverse and valid opinions. To everyone, even those who I might disagree with, I’d like to offer my thanks. The responses have given me a lot to think about
6 Likes
No issues with using Latin or Greek bases for scientific names?
Slavery in Rome
Slavery in Ancient Greece
4 Likes
Perhaps tangential, and certainly not a popular opinion, but I’m not a fan of taxonomic names being named after people in general, even to honor a discoverer. Certainly not references to entirely unrelated famous people (like the aforementioned, unfortunate Anophthalmus hitleri and the recent pop-culture icon Nannaria swiftae). Just describe the species in some way, please.
14 Likes
Maybe African names then? Oops.
Ok, Asia. Darn!
Middle East…? Argh!!!
Is anyone or anywhere suitably pure? No, they never are. Taxonomy will eat itself.
10 Likes
The reality is that any time you name something for a person or confer some other honor on someone (e.g., OJ Simpson and the Pro Football Hall of Fame), you run the risk that that person will turn out to be undeserving of it, maybe for reasons unrelated to why they received the honor in the first place. Happens all too frequently. Which is probably a valid reason to avoid naming anything for any person. But I don’t see that changing … it’s too ingrained in most cultures.
8 Likes
Acacia means thorn. The thorn trees of Africa have had their name claimed by thornLESS wattle in Australia. The older name takes precedence. But not this time. Rules are made to be broken. Africa would have liked the rule to hold, as promised.
5 Likes
I think one thing worth considering in the discussion of what is worthy of changing is whether or not those words or names are continuing to cause harm in the present. For instance, there are people alive right now who suffered greatly under hitler, and their immediate families who also continue to feel those rippling effects. There are descendents of slaves who still feel that generational trauma keenly. On the other hand I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument that anyone alive today is hurt on an ongoing basis by the atrocities of the Roman empire.
9 Likes
There are thorny Acacia or wattle.
Always an exception to prove a rule. But the name was used for African trees and only changed to Australia a few years ago.
It is certainly confusing for observers in Africa who look at an acacia tree, and have to weigh up, did they rename that Senegalia or Vachellia??
3 Likes
That’s a remarkable case where seniority in the scientific name was not followed. Don’t think I’ve seen anything that drastic in other taxa. I wonder how that was pushed through?
2 Likes
The flippant version was - can’t ask Australian horticulture to rename their plants.
https://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-3-1-acacias-21849.html
https://christiankull.net/2011/05/10/the-acacia-name-change-–-botany-and-emotion/
5 Likes
I did wonder how our local Catclaw Acacia had become Senegalia. But we still call it acacia. Crazy botanists.
3 Likes
Objectively defining ‘harm’ is as difficult as objectively defining ‘offence’. I do believe that objectivity is important in general, and even more so in the world of taxonomy.
1 Like
I might be the minority here, but we need to stop being so crabby over every little thing. If you are offended by a name and a long dead person, then maybe you shouldn’t be in the science (or history) field.
9 Likes
Who decides what is “offensive?” Please, there HAVE to be more important things about which we can worry.
4 Likes
I strongly oppose changing scientific names of organisms for any reason not required by changes in classification or the Code itself. Totally. (If I did agree to changing names just because I don’t like them, I’d change Asclepias syriaca, a milkweed of eastern North America.)
History is real and complex and often sad and sometimes offensive. How do you feel about the (white) parents opposing new textbooks because they want to protect their little (white) darlings from the knowledge that (white) ancestors of a majority of Americans massacred native Americans and many held slaves and slavery wasn’t all about singing happily in the fields? Should we erase that offensive knowledge? No, we should not.
Don’t change scientific names for reasons like this. Just don’t.
14 Likes
The short version is: Changing a particular scientific name because it is considered offensive would require a petition to the governing body of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants or the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Creating an ability to do so without such a petition would require changes to these codes. I don’t think either petitions or proposals to change the codes would be likely to succeed, but those are in any case the avenues by which this could happen.
4 Likes
I have a hard time connecting to this argument, because I don’t see scientific names as a historical archive documenting social history (especially in a capacity similar to textbooks). In fact, I think scientific names are more likely to honor controversial people/viewpoints than they are to archive their complicated pasts.
I lean towards not changing scientific names, but for different reasons. Even then, I would not be wildly opposed to changing controversial names if a general consensus on methodology could be reached (obviously this is not likely to happen). I would however like to see better naming practices for newly discovered species going forward.
9 Likes