Nerine sarniensis has its common name on iNat listed as “Guernsey Lily”. What does this plant have to do with Guernsey? Nothing, apart from the fact that it is often planted there. The plant is naturally restricted to the Western Cape of South Africa. This is clearly a case of colonial appropriation of an African plant.
I really find this name inappropriate and would like if iNat could change the listed common name. Ideally, I would like it to be erased from all botanical media. Alternative common names include raquel, berglelie (Afrikaans name), berg lily (anglicisation of Afrikaans name) and nerine (probably too vague though).
Unfortunately, the specific name “sarniensis” also refers to Guernsey, but that would be near impossible to change.
This is perhaps better discussed on a taxon flag, as many users don’t frequent the forum.
2 Likes
I thought there would have to be a debate first. A taxon flag just involves two people.
I agree that flagging the taxon page would probably be best and would reach the right people. It involves more than two people, unless the first curator coming across it immediately resolves it (which shouldn’t happen in this case).
As there’s already another English common name (“Red Nerine”) listed on iNat, I think it might be a relatively safe change to switch those names in terms of hierarchy/order?
While I understand why the name may be problematic, for practical reasons, I would be against deleting the name “Guernsey Lily” completely, so people can still find the species when searching for the name on iNat. But that way, it would be at least less prominent than the more neutral name.
3 Likes
Curator here, many people can see and comment on taxon flags, some have large debates with a lot more than 2 people. Debating common names should take place on a taxon flag
4 Likes
I don’t believe changing species names because some people consider them offensive is helpful in any way. Especially for species with names that have been around a long time and are part of the standard vocabulary for naturalists who study them, a small group of people deciding to change them for ideological reasons only leads to confusion and does nothing of value except give said small group of people an opportunity to virtue signal (looking at you American Ornithological Society removing eponyms…)
I see this kind of thing in the same category as “Gulf of America”
1 Like
If a name is truly offensive from an objective viewpoint, changing it should be done without much debate. If it’s merely an inaccurate name I don’t think a change is necessary but could still be desirable. Lots of gray in between the extremes. I do agree that it can be carried to extremes , such as removing all eponyms just because they’re eponyms.
6 Likes
I don’t normally care about common names. But I do draw the line at offensive ones and there are others already available anyway.
1 Like
This post is about a name that is just inaccurate, not offensive or ideological
I might have read the original post wrong, but it seemed the motivation for wanting it changed was the name’s association with colonialism
2 Likes
If we’re focusing purely on making names more accurate, let’s rename the Ornate Tree Lizard to Ornate Rock Lizard while we’re at it :)
1 Like
I took it as inaccurate, with colonialism mentioned as the reason for inaccuracy
I do find the colonial association offensive. Maybe not many do, but this situation is easily resolved by using alternative, already existing names.
2 Likes
Regardless of the ethics (or lack thereof) of colonialism, it is and always will be a part of human history and many species were described to modern science by colonial scientists (perhaps including this lily, I don’t know). I don’t see any need to try to erase that, in my opinion it is fine to acknowledge people’s historical and scientific contributions even if they participated in immoral and unethical practices in other areas.
1 Like
Please continue the discussion on a taxon flag. Thanks!