I’m usually distressed when I see these signs because of the negative impact on native moths and butterflies (and others) in a couple of my favorite parks (Ringwood State Park, Long Pond Ironworks and several others in northern New Jersey). But that’s an argument for another thread… I posted this because I noticed that whoever put them up used the name Gypsy Moth and not Spongy Moth like they’re supposed to!
1 Like
I’m not a huge fan of using the word “Gypsy” in anything since it is used as a slur word when describing the Romani people. “Spongy Moth” is a better name by far.
3 Likes
Gypsy moth was used for decades. I worked for someone who was on the committee that changed the name, and she still would accidentally say gypsy moth all the time.
6 Likes
Who you need to call is right there on the notice. Using BOTH names would be helpful for more people to recognize the name change. Perhaps a friendly word of advice would be welcome.
2 Likes
You can’t force the change of a common name unfortunately. I don’t like some common names too, such as the “Green Immigrant Leaf Weevil” as it’s not an immigrant everywhere and is native in some places, but the common name is here to stay the moment they become a “common name”.
I think it really doesn’t help the spread of the new common name when it sounds stupid. Spongy Moth doesn’t really sound great does it? Another example of poor renaming is the plant Wandering Jew having it’s name changed to “Wandering Dude”. If you want a new common name to actually be favoured it should at least be memorable and sound right, Wandering Jewel would have been a brilliant and appropriate name change in my opinion, but it seems those in charge of changing the names don’t actually put enough thought into the name changes either due to being highly unimaginative or simply not caring about what it’s called as long as it’s called something else. It’s no surprise people aren’t universally taking to these new names.
I think the only people who really have a right to be offended by this moths common name are people who may actually referred to by that term. Many Romani individuals and groups do in fact refer to themselves as “gypsies,” especially in the UK. The UK has a large population who refer to themselves as both gypsies and travellers. Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but where I live it’s not seen as a slur and gypsies are proud of what they are and use the word to describe themselves.
8 Likes
We had a previous conversation about offensive common names and what we think should be done about them here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/managing-offensive-common-names/12358
It makes no sense to dictate who is allowed to feel which way about what. When elected leaders in the US, for example, use offensive terms to stereotype a group I don’t belong to, we’re going to have a rule that I’m not allowed to care?
It is certainly true that some Romani people use the word “gypsies” to refer to themselves, and others who avoid it and find it offensive. The same is true (although less often used & more generally offensive) of the N-word here in the US. In fact, most offensive words are at least occasionally claimed by the people they are used to insult. Does that mean we have to embrace all these insults?
2 Likes
Nobody is dictating, but it seems clear to me that if anyone’s opinion on a word should carry the most weight, it’s the community that the word refers to. I would never presume to stand in front of Romani or gypsy people and tell them that I’m offended by the word “gypsy,” and that it should be erased from the common names of animals or plants. That feels wrong to me especially when it seems like these names are being removed without broad input from the people they should most concern.
It’s not a simple issue. Many Romani, gypsy and traveller people still identify with the word “gypsy” and use it with pride. Removing it from accepted usage (particularly in something as visible as species names) seems almost like erasing representation. These changes can unintentionally suggest that the Romani, Gypsy or Traveller identity itself is problematic or shameful, which is harmful.
We still have names like the Turk’s-cap Lily or Japanese Beetle, and they’re generally not considered offensive. Is the word “Gypsy” being treated differently and I wonder if it’s because it’s easier to erase references to a historically marginalized and often voiceless group? I genuinely wonder whether those advocating for these changes have consulted with self-identifying gypsy individuals or whether these decisions are being made on their behalf without engagement.
To me, there’s a difference between acknowledging when a term has been used harmfully and declaring that it’s inherently offensive. Words are shaped by context and intent. It’s true that the word “gypsy” has been used negatively in some settings, but that doesn’t mean it should be stripped of all other uses, especially when the word is embraced by the community itself.
This kind of linguistic revisionism worries me. I think it’s unproductive to pre-emptively label words as slurs when their meanings and usage vary. Consider words like “autistic”, which is a neutral and accepted term today but is already being weaponized in some corners of the internet. Do we remove the word entirely if the word is used as a slur? Or do we work to preserve and defend its respectful use?
The word itself isn’t always the problem, it’s how it’s used. When words are said with hate, they can become slurs. When used with respect, they often aren’t. Think about the word “queer”: it originally meant to be strange, odd or peculiar and was later used as a slur against gay people. Now it’s been reclaimed by the LGBTQ+ community and is used widely and proudly. Words don’t inherently carry offense; our context and intent shape their meaning.
If you believe that the word “Gypsy” is offensive where you are, that’s valid. But in the UK, where I’m from, it’s still commonly used by the Gypsy, Romani and Traveller communities as a word to describe their own people. We do have a specific slur for gypsy people over here, and if a species name had utilized it, I’d absolutely support removing it. But “Gypsy” isn’t considered a slur in our context.
Perhaps this is an issue of globalizing common names without accounting for regional and cultural nuance. If so, maybe the conversation should be more about context and engagement than blanket removal.
3 Likes
Maybe if Spongy Moth wasn’t such a lousy name it would’ve caught on by now.
3 Likes
Given that the species in question is invasive, causes significant damage to trees, and is the subject of eradication efforts, it doesn’t seem to me that a name that links it to an often persecuted and discriminated group would be positive representation for that group. I don’t think it is known exactly how it got the name – perhaps because of wanderings of the larvae – but it seems that it is not based on any concrete cultural connection that would be meaningful to self-identifying gypsies, so I don’t see how changing the name would be “erasing” them.
It’s not invasive everywhere though. Didn’t the common name exist before it became invasive in many other countries?
It takes years for knowledge of the name and presence of an invasive species to catch on with the general public. My impression is that people around me vaguely know about the old name and might be able to identify them accurately. For better or for worse, changing the name kind of means starting that process over. Especially if you want to avoid even any references to the old species (such as on the sign in the OP).
It is considered a forest pest even in its native range, because it has a tendency to periodic massive population surges which can cause considerable damage.
But note that the name change was made by the Entomological Society of America – i.e., where it is invasive. There does not seem to have been the same push to change the name in the UK, and a number of UK nature websites still use the old name.
Even if the common name was not offensive at the time when it was adopted, this does not mean that we can’t reflect and consider whether it potentially causes harm now because of undesirable associations. An alternative would be to try to educate people about the historical context, but this has its own challenges and problems.
2 Likes