Changes to scientific names due to potentially offensive language are real now, as the International Botanical Congress voted to change the names of more than 200 species:
I removed the Facebook tracking section from the link you shared.
The recent discussion about bird name changes had to be closed because it was becoming unconstructive, and the same will happen here if itās just a litany of complaints and repetitive arguments. If you have actual feedback for the IBC, youāll want to contact them directly.
7 Likes
We still have common names on iNat which use that racial slur.
I can flag my way thru them ? It is the equivalent of using āthe N wordā as a common name.
3 Likes
I think flagging would be a good start.
4 Likes
āAffraā might be considered offensive in 50 years. āAfricanensisā might be a more clear-cut and more secure alternative?
In French, even the word ānoirā (meaning āblackā) became considered offensive, and many persons (the younger ones) consider we shall use the English word āblackā instead, which I consider a nonsense.
Please donāt rename the Plaine des Cafres on RĆ©union Islandā¦ Itās a reference to History and nobody there considers this name potentially offensive. RĆ©union Island is exemplary with regard to integration of different origins, cultures, religions.
2 Likes
The slur in question ultimately comes from the Arabic word for āinfidelā, and so common and scientific names based on this root word have probably been applied across a wide area of Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
I understand that this word is absolutely offensive in a southern African context. Iām unsure how much that applies further afield. The particular example Iām thinking of is Citrus hystrix, where the problematic word is part of the most widely used common name. The Wikipedia explanation of the possible etymology of the common name is interesting.
People might choose to distinguish between the word when applied by white South Africans and when derived more directly from Arabic (or from other languages where it is a loanword).
One other complicating factor is that the same word in modern Arabic is often used in a pretty xenophobic and racist sense!
1 Like
A certain amount of caution is needed here. Iām less familiar with the problem of Latin names but know about renaming common namesā pitfalls. Years ago the was a movement to the term āCoonā from place names in Canada. There are numerous Coon lakes, Coon rivers, and Coon marshes. The assumption was that all such references were pejoratives for African Americans. In almost all cases the reference was to raccoons which should have been obvious. Raccoons like those places.
Less obvious but not exactly rare is the surname Coon. When I lived in a different small community it took a months-long fight by an amateur historian to convince the renamers that the nearby lake was named after the Coons who were the first family to build a cabin at the lake.
11 Likes
Hopefully thereās a full listā¦ link to something that describes the rules for change
1 Like
hystrix is CVās suggestion for cultivated citrus - since it does not offer hybrids.
If the word is offensive in modern Arabic, then that makes it simpler to apply a less offensive name.
Epithets such as afra and afrum are already in use in scientific plant names, for example in Portulacaria afra Jacq., the well-known spekboom , and refer to the material described as having the continent of Africa as geographical origin. from @vreinkymov 's link above.
There are so many reasons why names get changed. Attempting to be more kind seems like a pretty good one to me.
9 Likes
I removed the last few posts that referred direclty to the slur in question, as well as its etymology. I donāt think anyone here was using it pejoratively, but I donāt think a discussion about the word itself is something that needs to happen here - there are plenty of resources available about the word elsewhere.
A broader discussion about changing scientific names for these reasons is, I think, OK, but again this thread may need to be closed if itās unconstructive.
5 Likes
Not opposed to this particular change. I do wonder though if it might set a precedent for scientific name changes based on less egregious nomenclature. Iād think not but who knows.
5 Likes
The whole point of the proposed changes hinges on whether or not the terms are pejorative. If iNat canāt discuss that openly and honestly it might be too sensitive here.
2 Likes
It would seem that if there were never intent to harm, that a minimal expectation of grace might be appropriateā¦ at least in some cases. Itās hard to know without concrete examples.
I think itās possible to discuss the broad topic of decisions to change scientific names for the reasons the IBC did it without delving into the specific words, their uses, and history. This isnāt an forum about etymology, itās about nature. The article linked to in the OP explains why the IBC found the words unacceptable. I think a discussion can be had about the costs and benefits of a decision like this, for example, or how groups like IBC or the ESA can make a process to deal with it.
3 Likes
Like many topics on the forum, this one has been discussed at length. There was a similar thread where Vasily posted a helpful list of similar topics:
This topic of āname changes for political reasonsā gets into your philosophy about human nature, your philosophy about taxonomy, etc. No easy answers!
Iām sharing Vasilyās post in case you werenāt aware of it. Hopefully it adds value for you, if you want to dive deeper into this topic! 
3 Likes
iNat has the advantage of @jeanphilippeb and I to tell āyou over thereā about our lived experience of this word.
You told me in a previous round of this discussion that I am not allowed to use the N word, even to make the point. I flinch when I read āthat K wordā.
2 Likes
I donāt think thatās quite whatās being discussed. The names are being changed (or recommended for changing) because they cause harm today, not because they were created with any intent to cause harm. These are two separate things and we donāt have to judge anyoneās past intentions in order to decide what to do today.
Anyway, it seems to me that if you are wrong in a way that is interesting enough for someone to correct it later, thatās kind of the dream, isnāt it? Because it means someone is building on your work. Itās expected in science that some of the things we thought and did will eventually turn out to be wrong.
6 Likes
These names are being judged wrong not for any scientific reason but because they are offensive.
4 Likes
I like this change, although I recognize itāll cause a certain amount of disruption in documentation.
Besides the obvious issue of human discomfort about certain names, there have been a number of studies showing how the name of a species has an outsized impact on conservation efforts. Organisms saddled with names that have negative connotations are much less likely to be protected, which is quite unfortunate - they didnāt choose the name!
Language does evolve, and thereās no ironclad guarantee that whatever names we apply now wonāt have offensive connotations in the future, but we can make an effort with what we know now.
6 Likes