(119–122) Proposals to amend Articles 51 and 56 and Division <scp>III</scp>, to allow the rejection of culturally offensive and inappropriate names

Hammer, Timothy A.; Thiele, Kevin R.

doi:10.1002/tax.12620

Cited by 28 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When this text has already been finalized and submitted, a new proposal (Hammer & Thiele, 2021) appeared in Taxon , advocating “the rejection of culturally offensive and inappropriate names” and the establishment of a “Nomenclature Committee on Culturally Offensive or Inappropriate Names” (which, judging from its supposed functions, should probably be better called the “Extraordinary Committee on Nomenclatural Censorship”). The authors briefly commented on the “slippery slope” argument (which, in fact, is discussed in detail in my present text) but rather lightheartedly expressed their beliefs that the mentioned newly proposed Committee (with the help of other nomenclatural committees) “will quickly establish a precedent that only clearly egregious examples of culturally offensive or inappropriate names will be rejected, with a high degree of consensus, and misuse of the system for trivial rejections will be very limited”.…”

Section: Possible Solutions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

If “Rhodes‐” must fall, who shall fall next?

Mosyakin

2022

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smith and Figueiredo, in their recent articles, raised important issues of getting rid of colonial legacy in botanical nomenclature. Some other politically motivated claims and proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) have also been published or discussed by some other authors. In particular, Smith and Figueiredo expressed their opinion that "a proposal to amend to the Code, replacing epithets with the root 'rhodes-', where Cecil John Rhodes, or any landmark named for him is commemorated, should be considered". However, Rhodes is not the only controversial person whose name is currently associated with names of taxa. Here I consider several other cases of people of the past who were or are also sometimes treated, at least by some, as racists, colonialists, imperialists, war criminals, etc. Also, I discuss, in the context of Art. 51 of the ICN, a more general issue of names and epithets that are or may be considered offensive, inappropriate, or unacceptable by some people or groups of people. The nomenclature of organisms governed by nomenclatural codes is the crucially important tool in taxonomy and all sciences and fields of activity relying on or referring to it. Nomenclature also reflects the rich and fascinating history of scientific exploration of the living world. That history contains some unpleasant or even tragic events, episodes and periods, and not all people commemorated in names of organisms were free of sins by our modern standards. Science cannot and should not, however, employ politically motivated censorship and totalitarian cleansing of scientific history, and of the biological nomenclature that reflects that history. Nomenclature of plants, algae, and fungi shall not be transformed into a battleground for politically motivated campaigns. Only some exceptions are possible, but they should be dealt with the proper respect to the Code and to the centuries of taxonomic and nomenclatural traditions.

show abstract

Section: Possible Solutions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

If “Rhodes‐” must fall, who shall fall next?

Mosyakin

2022

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such an action would be consistent with contemporary global developments, beyond plant nomenclature, which have given rise to the removal of other symbols and honorifics, such as statues and the names of countries, towns, and buildings, of Rhodes and other individuals associated with imperialism and colonialism, and who were particularly notorious proponents or architects of these systems. Independently, and in the December 2021 issue of Taxon , i.e., volume 70(6), Hammer & Thiele (2021) proposed a formal amendment to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (hereafter the Code ) that would provide a mechanism through which Smith and Figueiredo's views could be implemented. Shortly thereafter, the views of Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and proposals of Hammer & Thiele (2021) were severely misrepresented by Mosyakin (2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Independently, and in the December 2021 issue of Taxon , i.e., volume 70(6), Hammer & Thiele (2021) proposed a formal amendment to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (hereafter the Code ) that would provide a mechanism through which Smith and Figueiredo's views could be implemented. Shortly thereafter, the views of Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and proposals of Hammer & Thiele (2021) were severely misrepresented by Mosyakin (2022). Statements we did not make and views to which we do not subscribe were attributed to us and require refuting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Arguments against what Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and Hammer & Thiele (2021) presented and proposed rely on three contentions. The first is the “slippery slope” argument—in essence, that the actions proposed by Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and Hammer & Thiele (2021) will inevitably lead to a slide into unintended and uncontrollable consequences and the wholesale changing of scientific plant names. The second is that Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and Hammer & Thiele (2021) are engaged in a politically motivated campaign of censorship akin to that found in totalitarian regimes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first is the “slippery slope” argument—in essence, that the actions proposed by Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and Hammer & Thiele (2021) will inevitably lead to a slide into unintended and uncontrollable consequences and the wholesale changing of scientific plant names. The second is that Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and Hammer & Thiele (2021) are engaged in a politically motivated campaign of censorship akin to that found in totalitarian regimes. The third is that the views of Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and proposals of Hammer & Thiele (2021) are an attempt to expunge history.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dealing with inappropriate honorifics in a structured and defensible way is possible

Smith

Figueiredo

Hammer

et al. 2022

TAXON

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent article electronically published in Taxon as a “Point of View” in 2021 (and subsequently in hardcopy as a “Perspective” in 2022), Gideon F. Smith and Estrela Figueiredo commented on the undesirability of the continued commemoration of people of severely questionable ethics, including the imperialist Cecil John Rhodes (1853–1902), in botanical nomenclature. Independently addressing a similar topic at around the same time, Timothy A. Hammer and Kevin R. Thiele published proposals to amend Articles 51 and 56 and Division III of the Code, to allow the considered rejection of culturally offensive and inappropriate names. Subsequently, widely circulated responses to Smith & Figueiredo (2022) and Hammer & Thiele (2021) severely misrepresented our positions and views. We here respond to allegations that what we proposed will damage plant nomenclature, and clarify and further substantiate our views.

show abstract

Homo bodoensis and why it matters

Roksandić

Radović

et al. 2022

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In our original paper, we proposed a new species, Homo bodoensis, to replace the problematical taxa Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis, with the goal of streamlining communication about human evolution in the Chibanian. We received two independent responses. Given their substantial overlap, we provide one combined reply. In this response: (1) we are encouraged that the primary proposal in our paper, to discontinue the use of H. heidelbergensis (as a junior synonym to Homo neanderthalensis) due to its' nomenclatural problems, is acknowledged. (2) we provide additional clarification about the rules governing taxonomic nomenclature as outlined by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and join the growing calls for a revision to these rules. (3) we discuss further why H. rhodesiensis should be abandoned, particularly in light of the current sensitivity to using culturally inappropriate names. We conclude that H. bodoensis is a better solution than the proposed alternatives.

show abstract

(119–122) Proposals to amend Articles 51 and 56 and Division III, to allow the rejection of culturally offensive and inappropriate names

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

If “Rhodes‐” must fall, who shall fall next?

If “Rhodes‐” must fall, who shall fall next?

Dealing with inappropriate honorifics in a structured and defensible way is possible

Homo bodoensis and why it matters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About